MADURAI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. BOOMINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Madurai City Municipal Corporation aggrieved by the Order passed in I. A. No. 82 of 1993 in O. S. No. 149 of 1992 on the file of sub-Court, Madurai , dated 8. 2. 1993 has approached this Court by way of the present revision in c. R. P. No. 691 of 1993 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Likewise, against the order in I. A. No. 55 of 1993 in O. S. No. 182 of 1993, on the file of the I Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai dated 10. 2. 1993 C. R. P. No. 692 of 1993 has been filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India. Since identical orders have been passed both the revisions can be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) EVEN at the outset, in view of the fact that the interim injunction granted by the courts below had already expired (granted up to 1. 3. 1993 and 8. 3. 1993 respectively), Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the respondents submits that nothing survives in the present revisions for adjudication. The abovesaid statement has not been disputed by Mr. E. Padmanaban, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner-defendant is a Municipal Corporation, is facing is same problem year after year, he wants this Court to go into the merits and legal aspects and render a categorical pronouncement. Though I am in entire agreement with the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents, in the interest of civic body, I want to discuss some of the features of the case in the following manner.

(3.) MR. E. Padmanaban, learned Senior Counsel relying on madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 read with the rules framed thereunder submits that the right to collect fees in the market as well as slaughter house is only a licence and the petitioner is entitled to conduct auction every year in order to augment revenue. He also points out that the following three decisions clearly show that the right to collect fees in market and slaughter house is only a licence and not lease. (1) Pandara Pandian v. The Commissioner, Tirunelveli municipality, 1990 WLR 105 (Srinivasan, J ). (2) Arumugam, M. v. The Commissioner, Paramakudi municipality, 1990 WLR 148 (Srinivasan J ). (3) Balakrishnan, V. S. v. Pudukkottai Municipality, rep. bythe Commissioner, Pudukkottai Dist. and Another, 1994 WLR 430 (Srinivasan, j ). Since the abovesaid legal position is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent, I am not extracting the various conclusion reached in the above said cases.