C MURALI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. Relief claimed: the petitioner seeks for the issue of writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Executive Officer, Avinashi Town Panchayat relating to proceedings in Na. Ka. 1374/2007/b dated 4. 2. 2008 of tender-cum-auction notice and quash the same. He also seeks for renewal of licence for the right to collect toll in the daily shandy situate at the old bus stand, Avinashi. II. Petitioner's contention:

(2.) IT is an admitted case that the petitioner had been awarded with the contract to collect toll from the vendors at the old bus stand, being declared as successful bidder on public auction-cum- tender held on 15. 2. 2007. His bid at Rs. 2,85,000/- was accepted as the highest. According to the petitioner, he could not effectively enjoy the right under the licence by virtue of the fact that previous licencee one Kandasamy has filed W. P. No. 17155 of 2007 and he had sought for interim orders. The petitioner was the third respondent in the said writ petition. The writ petition came to be dismissed ultimately by a finding that the structure which he had put up had to be removed and the property should be made vacant to enable the petitioner to exercise his rights under the licence. The petitioner's woe is that the Panchayat had not taken possession of the property from the said Kandasamy and he had given representation on various dates requesting that the structures which had been put up by the Kandasamy must be removed and property should be delivered to him. It so happened that yet another writ petition has come to be filed in respect of the very same property in W. P. No. 2708/2008 at the instance of persons who claimed to be the vendors within the space provided in the bus stand and an order of status quo was made initially and during the pendency of the interim order, his period of licence itself had come to an end. The petitioner therefore claimed that for the entire period when he had licence to collect toll, i. e. from 1. 4. 2007 to 31. 3. 2008, he could not exercise the right and the right which was denied due to laxity on the part of the panchayat to deliver vacant possession of the property shall be compensated by renewal of licence for the subsequent period from 1. 4. 2008 to 31. 3. 2009.

(3.) IT is also an admitted fact that there was a public auction-cum-tender for the subsequent period vi. , 2008-09 and the third respondent has been declared to be the successful bidder at the said auction. Having regard to the subsequent event when another person has been declared to be the successful bidder and he has not been granted the licence, the petitioner seeks to restrict his claim in the writ petition for the return of the amount which he had paid to the panchayat at the time of the award of the contract viz. Rs. 2,85,000/- with interest. III. The plea on behalf of panchayat: