MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER SATHYAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS SATHYAMANGALAM ERODE DISTRICT Vs. S P SARAVANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. W.A. No.369 of 2004 is filed against the order made in W.P. No.18698 of 2003 dated 15.10.2003, wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent.

(2.) W.A. No.1072 of 2004 is filed against the order in W.P. No.16598 of 2003 dated 15.10.2003, wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition following the order made in W.P. No.18698 of 2003.

(3.) THE appellant-Municipality filed counter affidavit in the Writ Petition and contended that the public in the locality objected for issuing licence and there is lot of pollution in and around petitioner's premises and river Bhavani nearby. THE first respondent was charge sheeted under Sections 262 and 269 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, and the cases are pending in S.T.C. Nos.944/2002 and 1111/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathyamangalam. It is also stated that for conducting mutton stall, chicken stall and fish stall, separate licences have to be obtained. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that no licence is granted to individuals for running mutton/chicken/fish stall within the area of operation sought for by the first respondent and 15 mutton/chicken/fish stalls are granted licences in public auction to the successful bidders every year for the past about 30 years. THE appellant municipality is getting revenue to the tune of Rs.15.00 lakhs and using the above revenue for the betterment of the inhabitants of the area. THE first respondent is attempting to run a parallel private market by getting a single licence on payment of Rs.250/- and if it is granted, it will deprive the revenue of the municipality. THE allegation of mala fide is also denied. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Rajiv Nagar, where the first respondent applied for licence to have a mutton stall, is thickly populated residential area and it will cause health hazards. A resolution was passed by the Municipality on 25.10.2002 to close the trade in the residential area on hygenic ground and the Municipal Resolution No.1212 dated 30.1.2001 has not been quashed by this Court, which prohibits permitting to have chicken/mutton/fish stalls in private places. THE impugned order in the Writ Petition was passed on the recommendation of the Sanitary Officer and therefore the appellant prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. Various other factual averments were also denied in the counter affidavit.