VILLUPURAM MARKET COMMITTEE Vs. K SEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Writ Appeal filed against the Order made in W.P.No.18567/2006, dated 20.06.2006. Cross Objection filed in W.A.No.1016/2006, against the Order made in W.P.No.18567/2006, dated 20.06.2006. Writ Petition filed for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the second respondent relating to the impugned Order bearing Ref. No.D1/1151/2006 dated 12.07.2006 and quash the same.) Common judgment: The Writ Appeal and the Cross-Objection have been filed by the petitioner and respondents in the Writ Petition challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.06.2006 passed in W.P.No.18567 of 2006. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the Appellants in W.A.No.1016 of 2006. While, the writ petitioner is the petitioner in Cross-Objection No. 11 of 2007. The very same writ petitioner has preferred W.P.No. 22507 of 2006 as against the order of the appellants dated 12.07.2006, cancelling the extension of lease granted in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of the weigh-bridge in the Villupuram Market Committee in the extension order dated 3.4.2006.

(2.) IN the Villupuram Market area, a weigh-bridge was stated to have been purchased in the year 2001 and the maintenance contract was granted in favour of the writ petitioner by letter dated 12.06.2002. INitially, the contract was for a period of eleven months. The said contract was extended for a further period of eleven months from 13.06.2003 to 12.05.2004 by order dated 9.6.2003. It was subsequently, extended by letter dated 23.06.2004 for a further period of eleven months from 13.06.2004. The Villupuram Market Committee's term came to an end on 3.4.2006. The twenty two months' period, which was granted by order dated 23.6.2004 was to expire on 12.4.2006. However, on the last date, when the Market Committee's term itself came to an end on 3.4.2006, the Committee through its Secretary extended the period of lease for a period of three years viz., from 13.4.2006 to 12.4.2009 with 10% of increase on the existing rate. Since, the term of Office of the Market Committee came to an end on 3.4.2006, the State Government in exercise of the powers vested with it under Sub-Section 1 of Section 33 of the Tamilnadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1987, issued G.O.Ms.No. 92 dated 3.4.2006, appointing the Joint Director of Agriculture as Special officer of the Appellants-Market Committee. He also took charge of the Office of Special Officer in the afternoon of 3.4.2006. Thereafter, the second appellant issued its proceeding dated 15.6.2006, cancelling the extension of the lease granted earlier in its order dated 3.4.2006.

(3.) MR. P. Wilson, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants, in his submissions contended that the Cross-Objection filed by the writ petitioner was barred y time and therefore it is not maintainable. According to the learned counsel, the writ petitioner having failed to challenge that part of the order of the learned Single Judge in holding that the period of lease could not have been extended beyond eleven months in the order dated 03.04.2006, which has become final and since eleven months period from 03.04.2006 had come to an end on 12.03.2007, nothing would survive for the writ petitioner to agitate in these proceedings. The learned counsel would contend that since the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to writ petitions as well as the writ appeal arising out of a writ petition, the writ petitioner cannot maintain the cross-objection in this writ appeal.