A SAKTHIVEL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PERIYAR DISTRICT ERODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the five writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 7075 of 1995 has been filed by the petitioner, praying for the issue of writ of certiorari, to call for and quash the records of the 2nd respondent bearing No. Na. Ka. 92 of 1995 dated 28. 4. 1995.

(3.) THE Kannivadi weekly Shandy was established by the 2nd respondent Panchayat. THE right to collect the gate fees from the persons who exhibit their commodities in the market is being auctioned annually. For the year 1995-96, auction notification has also been published on 13. 1. 1995 to auction for the privilege to collect the fees for the said weekly auction shandy. THE auction was conducted on 15. 2. 1995 and the highest bid was rs. 12,98,000. THE first respondent has also confirmed the highest bid. THE writ petitioner began to collect the fees from 7. 4. 1995 i. e. , the first date of the order commencing from 1. 4. 1995. THE 2nd respondent Panchayat received number of complaints from the merchants and the general public that the petitioner is extracting more fees, than the prescribed fees, violating the conditions, stipulated in the auction agreement. After inspection and after offering an opportunity, the 2nd respondent imposed a fine of Rs. 300 for excess collection. Once again complaints have been received from the merchants and general public alleging that the writ petitioner had been extracting more fees than prescribed. THE second respondent in writ petitions, after inspection and after offering an opportunity, imposed a fine of Rs. 300 on 14. 4. 1995. At the instance of the 2nd respondent panchayat, the first respondent appointed a committee, consisting of 3 Executive Officer and 4 others from different Panchayats, for investigation with respect to the complaints and alleged irregularities by the writ petitioner. Based on the report submitted by the said committee the 1st respondent District Collector issued an Enquiry Proceedings to cancel the licence granted to the writ petitioner. THE 2nd respondent, after offering an opportunity, cancelled the licence letter No. 92 of 1995, dated 28. 4. 1995, challenging the said cancellation, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition no. 7075 of 1995. In the said writ petition, this Court had declined to grant interim order.