LAWS(MAD)-1999-8-17

VIRUDHACHALAM TOWN VEGETABLE DAILY MARKET MERCHANTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. COMMISSIONER VIRUDHACHALAM MUNICIPALITY

Decided On August 04, 1999
VIRUDHACHALAM TOWN VEGETABLE DAILY MARKET MERCHANTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER, VIRUDHACHALAM MUNICIPALITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner association have filed these writ petitions for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from implementing the decision of closing the existing vegetable market functioning at Vridhagireeswarar Temple Nanda-vanam, Vridhachalam without preceded by a statutory decision of the Municipal Council and previous sanction from the State Government as required under Section 260 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner associations is that they are running vegetable market for the past 13 years, in the place belonging to Vridhagireeswarar Temple. The temple authorities had given the place to the municipality for the purpose of running the market for rent. The municipality is collecting the daily rent from the vendors in the market. The said market was shifted to the new market which is constructed by the municipality at Cuddalore Road. In accordance with Section 260 (3) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act the Council has to obtain permission of the State Government to close the market or to shift the same and in this case that has not been done and hence the respondents should be restrained from closing the existing market.

(3.) The respondents have filed counter- affidavit wherein it is stated that an all party meeting was convened by the municipality on 4-10-97 to assess the use of the public. It was unanimously decided that the daily market should be shifted immediately to the new market complex not only to facilitate the putting into beneficial use of the daily market which was already been constructed by the municipality on their own site with huge funds borrowed from the Government but also to reduce the heavy congestion on the road abutting the existing daily market run on the land belonging to the temple. Section 260 (3) of the said Act requires the sanction of the Government to close down the market, not to shift the existing market to another place and as such there is no illegality in the shifting of the market.