LAWS(MAD)-1995-10-43

MADURAI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. MADURAI MANAGER KARIMEDU RAM NAGAR MARKET ANAITHU VIABARIGAL NALA CHANGAM

Decided On October 31, 1995
THE MADURAI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MADURAI Appellant
V/S
MADURAI MANAGER, KARIMEDU RAM NAGAR MARKET ANAITHU VIABARIGAL NALA CHANGAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY K.PANDIAN, MADURAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the writ appeal is posted today for orders by the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is treated as having been posted before us, and accordingly, the writ appeal and the writ petition are heard together, because by considering the prayer made in the W.M.P. No.20001 of 1995 in W.P. No. 12525 of 1995, out of which the writ appeal arises it would amount to considering the main writ petition itself. Therefore we have taken up the writ petition along with the writ appeal, as the decision in the writ petition would dispose of the writ appeal.

(2.) THE writ petitioner is an association known as Madurai Manager Karimedu Ram Nagar Market Anaithu Viabarigal Nala Changam represented by its General Secretary and it has sought for the issue, of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Madurai City Municipal Corporation to resort to the method direct collection of rent from the members of the petitioner sangam either on daily basis or on monthly basis as is being done in respect of other public markets in the Madurai city.

(3.) MR.B.S. Gnanadesikan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that there are about 17 markets in the Madurai city and the fees from the traders and persons who carry on their trade either regularly or occasionally, are collected by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation through its staff, whereas in the case of Ram Nagar Market, auctioning of the right to collect fees is adopted, which is discriminatory. That apart it is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that without due regard to the fees prescribed by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation, the auction purchaser is harassing the petty traders by collecting higher amount than the one prescribed by the Madurai Corporation and that the object of public market is not only to argument the revenue to the Municipal Corporation but also to serve the general public and therefore, it is necessary for the Corporation to collect the fee from those who used to carry on the trade in the market, through the staff of the Corporation like other markets.