Madras High Court
Vijayan vs The District Collector on 25 July, 2012
Author: R.Banumathi
Bench: R.Banumathi, G.M.Akbar Ali
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25/07/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI W.P.(M.D) No.4962 of 2012 Vijayan ... Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District. 2.The Project Officer, District Panchayat Development Agency, Dindigul District. 3.The Block Development Officer, Sanarpatti Union, Sanarpatti, Dindigul District. ... Respondents. Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to take action for using the bus stand at Gopalpatti Village, Natham Road, Dindigul District for public purpose on the basis of the Petitioner's representation dated 29.02.2012. *** !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Subash Babu ^For Respondents ... Mr.K.Mahendran 1 and 2 Spl. Government Pleader For Respondent ... Mr.M.Govindan No.3 Spl. Government Pleader :ORDER
R.BANUMATHI,J Petitioner seeks Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to take action for using the bus stand at Gopalpatti Village, Natham Road, Dindigul District for public purpose on the basis of Petitioner's representation dated 29.02.2012.
2. Gopalpatti Village is situated in Natham-Dindigul State Highways. Ministry of Panchayat Raj maintains fund in the name - "Backward Regions Grant Fund" (BRG Fund) which will provide financial resource for development of backward Districts. As per the scheme, in the State of Tamil Nadu, six Districts were selected and among six Districts, Dindigul District was also selected. Vembarpatty Panchayat passed a resolution to have a bus stand at Gopalpatti and the same was forwarded to District Panchayat Committee. From out of the fund allotted by Ministry of Panchayat Raj under BRG Fund scheme to Dindigul District, the Dindigul District Panchayat Council allotted Rs.30,00,000/- and the Writ Petitioner, who was the then District Panchayat Councillor contributed Rs.4,00,000/-. Bus stand was constructed at Gopalpatti at the cost of the said Rs.34,00,000/-.
3. Case of Writ Petitioner is that the said bus stand was inaugurated on 25.02.2011 and subsequently, because of change of Government, the bus stand was not put to use. Stating that the bus stand is kept idle for a long period and that due to increase in movement of vehicles people are put to inconvenience, Petitioner had given a representation on 29.02.2012 to the 1st Respondent requesting to put the bus stand to use. Petitioner had filed the Writ Petition on 16.03.2012 seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to take action on his representation dated 29.02.2012 for using the bus stand at Gopalpatti village, Natham-Dindigul Road, Dindigul District.
4. Though the Writ Petition was originally filed on 16.03.2012, the same was returned for rectification. After compliance, the Writ Petition was represented by the Petitioner only on 12.04.2012. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 17.04.2012, on oral instructions, the learned Special Government Pleader stated that the bus stand of Gopalpatti village has been ordered to be converted as shopping complex. Thereafter, the Writ Petitioner filed additional affidavit stating that Vembarpatty Panchayat passed a resolution deciding to convert the bus stand as daily market in resolution No.31/2012 dated 17.02.2012 and the same was approved by the 1st Respondent in Proceedings Na.Ka.No.696/2012/A3 dated 27.03.2012. Writ Petitioner alleged that Panchayat passed the resolution only to defeat the Writ Petition and seeks for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash resolution No.31/2012 dated 27.02.2012 and the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.696/2012/A3 dated 27.03.20112, approving the resolution.
5. 3rd Respondent Panchayat Union filed counter contending that Gopalpatti village is situated in Natham-Dindigul State Highways and that Gopalpatti is neither a junction nor a terminus and therefore, the bus stand at Gopalpatti is not necessitated. In order to generate income and revenue to the Panchayat, by resolution No.31/2012 dated 17.02.2012, Vembarpatty Village Panchayat had decided to convert the bus stand as a daily market. When the Panchayat resolved to convert the bus stand into a market place, Writ Petitioner cannot seek for direction to use the same as bus stand itself. Writ Petition is filed only on personal interest and not on public interest.
6. Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel for Writ Petitioner contended that Rs.30,00,000/- was allotted from out of BRG Fund scheme and that the bus stand was constructed only in pursuance to the resolution passed by the Panchayat and that the same was approved by the District Panchayat and the State Government forwarded the proposal to the Central Government and only thereafter the amount was allotted. It was submitted that since the bus stand was not used, the same has become a parking place for lorries and private vans. Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that the purpose for construction of bus stand was to offer convenience to the commuters and to ease the traffic in the State Highways where there is increase in movement of vehicles and therefore, in public interest seeks for a direction to the 1st Respondent to put to use the bus stand. He would further submit that resolution No.31/2012 dated 17.02.2012 has been passed by the Panchayat only to defeat the Writ Petition.
7. Per contra, Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 contended that in order to generate more income and revenue to the Panchayat, Vembarpatty Panchayat has passed a resolution to convert the bus stand into a daily market by resolution No.31/2012 dated 17.02.2012. He would further contend that Writ Petitioner who was the then District Ward Councillor was well aware of the resolution passed and without disclosing the same, Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition seeking for a Writ of Mandamus. Learned Special Government Pleader would further contend that Petitioner is a political activist and not having any public interest in the matter and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
8. We have carefully considered the submissions and the materials on record.
9. Bus stand was constructed in Gopalpatti village, Natham-Dindigul State Highways which approximately measures 123 x 139 square feet. As pointed out earlier, bus stand was constructed at the cost of Rs.34,00,000/- - Rs.30,00,000/- contributed by the District Panchayat Council from out of the fund allotted by Backward Regions Grant Fund scheme and Rs.4,00,000/- by the Writ Petitioner who was then the District Panchayat Ward Councillor.
10. In the additional affidavit, even though Petitioner stated that bus stand was inaugurated on 25.02.2012, in the counter, the same is denied by the 3rd Respondent. According to Respondents, final bill to the Contractor was settled only on 10.02.2012 and only thereafter on 13.02.2012, 3rd Respondent handed over possession of the bus stand to Vembarpatty Village Panchayat.
11. Vembarpatty Village Panchayat felt that the bus stand is in a small area and that the same will not be sufficient for bus stand. That apart, Gopalpatti is situated in Natham-Dindigul State Highways is neither a junction nor a terminus and therefore, it was felt that the bus stand at Gopalpatti is not warranted. Contending these circumstances and in order to generate income and revenue to Vembarpatty Panchayat, by resolution No.31/2012 dated 17.02.2012, the Vembarpatty Panchayat decided to convert the bus stand into a daily market. We may usefully refer to the said resolution dated 17.02.2012 which reads as follows:-
"@ .......... Bfhghy;gl;oapy; fl;lg;bgw;w g!; epiyaj;jpy; vt;tpj BgUe;JfSk; epWj;Jtjpy;iy. Bfhghy;gl;oapypUe;J BgUe;Jfs; g[wg;gLtJ, jA;FtJ vJt[k; ny;iy. jpz;Lf;fy; ej;jj;jpypUe;J g[wg;gl;L tUk; tHpapy; rhiyapd; kPJ BgUe;Jfs; epd;W gazpfis Vw;wp/nwf;fp bry;fpd;wd. bghJthf Cuhl;rpapd; bghJ brhj;Jf;fis guhkhpj;J njd; Kyk; fpilf;Fk; tUkhdj;ij bgUf;FtJ Cuhl;rpapd; flikahFk;. jw;rkak; BgUe;Jfs; vJt[k; BgUe;J epiyaj;jpy; epWj;Jtjpy;iy vd;gjhYk;, gad;gLj;jhky; tpl;Ltpl;lhy; U.30,00,000/ (Kg;gJ yl;rk;) kjpg;gpy; fl;lg;gl;l fl;olA;fs; gytPdk; mile;J tpLk; vd;gij fUjpa[k; nut[ BeuA;fspy; rKf tpBuhj rf;jpfshy; fl;olA;fSk; fhypaplKk; gad;gLj;jg;gl;L ghJfhg;gw;w r{H;epiy Vw;gLtij jtph;f;Fk; bghUl;Lk; bghJ kf;fs; eyd; fUjpa[k; kw;Wk; Cuhl;rpapd; tUkhdj;ija[k; mjpfhpf;Fk; Behf;fj;jpy; Bkw;go g!; epiyaj;jpy; cs;s fhypaplj;jpy; rpW rpW filfshf jLj;J jpdrhp re;ij mikj;J thp tr{ypj;J mjd;Kyk; fpilf;Fk; tUkhdj;ij Cuhl;rpapd; eph;thf brytpdk; kw;Wk; bjUtpsf;F guhkhpg;g[k;, FoePh; tHA;Fjy; Mfpatw;wpw;F gad;gLj;jp bfhs;tij Vw;Wf;bfhs;s kd;wk; mA;fPfhpf;fpwJ."
The resolution of the Panchayat dated 17.02.2012 was approved by the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.696/2012/A3 dated 27.03.2012.
12. Panchayat decided to augment income and revenue to the Panchayat by converting Gopalpatti bus stand into a daily market. Panchayat is the custodian of the properties. It is for the Panchayat to take a decision as to how best the property could be put to use. In the self governance of the Panchayat, the Court cannot substitute its views and issue a direction to the 1st Respondent to put to use the bus stand as bus stand itself, especially, when the Panchayat resolved to convert the place as daily market in order to generate the income.
13. Learned counsel for Petitioner mainly contended that the funds for construction of bus stand was allotted from BRG Fund scheme. He would submit that resolution was passed to have the bus stand at Gopalpatti and the same was approved by the District Panchayat and the same was processed through High Power Committee headed by Chief Secretary and thereafter forwarded to the Government of India and fund was allotted and the bus stand was constructed and the same cannot be converted as market place. Ofcourse, bus stand funded by Backward Regions Grant Fund, 2009-2010. Even though funds were allotted by BRG Fund scheme, there is no bar for conversion of the bus stand into a daily market.
14. Plan and estimate for converting the bus stand into a daily market was also produced before us. Learned Special Government Pleader Mr.M.Govindan appearing for 3rd Respondent submitted that without much of structural alteration in the bus stand, at the estimate of Rs.25.20 lakhs, Panchayat resolved to put up eight shops (Shop Nos.1 to 8) on the western side and eight shops (Shop Nos.9 to 16) on the eastern side. It was submitted that the shops would help the villagers to have easy access to the market and at the same time, it would also generate income to the Panchayat.
15. Assailing the resolution dated 17.02.2012, learned counsel for Writ Petitioner submitted that resolution dated 17.02.2012 is a malafide one and urged to quash the same. Learned counsel for Petitioner contended that even though Writ Petition was filed seeking Writ of Mandamus, the Court can always mould the relief. In support of his contention, learned counsel for Writ Petitioner relied upon the decision reported in (2011) 1 SCC 484 [M.Sudakar v. V.Manoharan and others]. In the said decision, the Supreme Court observed that power to mould the relief is always available to the Court possessed with the power to issue prerogative Writs. It was further held that in order to do complete justice, Court can mould the relief depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
16. As pointed out earlier, it is for the Panchayat to take a decision as to how best the property could be put to use and it is not for the Court to substitute its views. That apart, the Writ Petition was originally filed on 16.03.2012 and the same was returned for rectification of defects by giving 10 days time on 19.03.2012. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was represented on 12.04.2012 and came up for admission on 17.04.2012. Even though, resolution No.31/2012 was passed on 17.02.2012, Writ Petitioner has not disclosed the same in the Writ Petition when originally Writ Petition filed on 16.03.2012.
17. Learned Special Government Pleader contended that the Petitioner is a political activist and that his name is engraved in the Board which is put up at the bus stand and that the Writ Petition is filed only on personal interest and not on public interest. When the Panchayat resolved to convert the bus stand as daily market for the benefit of the villagers and also to generate income to the Panchayat, we do not find any public interest involved in this Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.
bbr To
1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.
2.The Project Officer, District Panchayat Development Agency, Dindigul District.
3.The Block Development Officer, Sanarpatti Union, Sanarpatti, Dindigul District.