KESAVALU NAIDU Vs. CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (JUDGMENT of the Court, delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J.)Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 28. 03. 2003, made in W. P. No. 2487 of 2003, dismissing the Writ Petition as devoid of any merit, writ petitioner Kesavalu Naidu has filed the above Writ Appeal.

(2.) FOR convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge. According to the petitioner, the first respondent / Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority came out with an advertisement in the New Indian Express dated 05. 09. 2002, inviting applications for allotment of plots for various purposes inclusive of a commercial plot for Weigh Bridge in Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex. The rate of the plots was fixed as Rs. 1,220/- per sq. ft. in the advertisement and applications were received by the Authority. So far as Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex, shops, commercial plots etc. are concerned, the first respondent stated in the advertisement that, in future, allotment would be made on first come first served basis and that, if more number of applications are received for shops/plots, allotment would be made by drawl of lots. The petitioner submitted an application to the first respondent and his application was acknowledged on 16. 09. 2002. Though he was eagerly waiting for allotment orders, he did not receive any communication. On 22. 01. 2003, he came to understand that the third respondent was allotted the plot for the purpose of Weigh Bridge under proceedings dated 03. 12. 2002 of the second respondent and that, pursuant to the said allotment, the third respondent was taking steps to install the Weigh Bridge. The action of respondents 1 and 2 in allotting the plot to the third respondent is arbitrary, illegal and unjust. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, he admitted that even on 11. 09. 2002 itself he was advised by the CMDA to remit the cost of the Weigh Bridge with M/s. Perfect Weighing System, Chennai-98, exposing the predetermination and the favouritism shown by the authorities in his favour. According to the petitioner, the learned single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, even though had appreciated that drawl of lots should have been conducted, erroneously held against the petitioner by observing that the petitioner had applied for a plot in A-Road while the plot was available in E-Road; that the 3rd respondent applied for the plot in E-Road and that the plot of the size applied for by the petitioner was not available. The observations of the learned Judge are not germane to the issue. According to the petitioner, there were two applications for one plot and the third respondent was picked and chosen for being conferred the benefit of allotment. The order of the learned single Judge is untenable in law and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) HEARD Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/appellant, Mr. J. Ravindran, learned counsel for the CMDA and Mr. R. Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the third respondent.