Madras High Court
P.Ravi vs Madurai City Municipal on 19 August, 2010
Bench: D.Murugesan, M.Duraiswamy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/08/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.A.(MD)No.456 of 2010 P.Ravi .. Appellant vs 1. Madurai City Municipal Corporation Council represented by its Hon'ble Mayor Madurai City Municipal Corporation Tallakulam, Madurai 2. The Commissioner Madurai City Municipal Corporation Tallakulam Madurai .. Respondents Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 23.7.2010 made in W.P.(MD)No.8211 of 2010. !For Appellant ... Mr.G.Ethirajulu for Mr.K.K.Senthil ^For Respondents ... Mr.M.Ravishankar for R2 :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by D.MURUGESAN,J.) This writ appeal is directed against the dismissal of the writ petition. The facts giving rise to the present writ appeal are as follows. The writ appeal pertains to the licence granted to the appellant for collection of parking fee in respect of the lorry, van and auto-rickshaw which enter into the central market located near Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple. The appellant approached this Court questioning the notification calling for tenders, which was published in the Tamil newspaper "Dinakaran" dated 12.6.2010, in respect of the grant of licence for collection of parking fee in the temporarily constructed central market located near Mattuthavani. That writ petition came to be filed by placing reliance upon G.O.Ms.78, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 25.5.2009. According to the appellant, he is a grantee of permanent licence to collect the parking fee from the vehicles entering into the central market located near Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple and therefore he is entitled to the extension of that licence for a further period of three years in terms of the above Government Order. That grievance was not accepted by the learned single Judge on the ground that the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 is not applicable to the appellant, as the appellant was only granted a temporary licence and there was no vested right in the appellant to seek for renewal.
2. Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was granted licence for collection of parking fee in the cycle stand in the central market located near Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple from the year 2009-2010. That was in pursuance of the earlier Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.85, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 19.7.2000, which was extended to the licences granted by the municipal corporations as well in the Government Order dated 25.5.2009. In fact, as per Resolution No.7 of the respondent Corporation dated 22.1.2010, even the temporary licensees in the central market located near Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple would be entitled to collect the parking fee in the temporarily constructed central market near Mattuthavani. Based upon the said resolution, the Commissioner of Madurai City Municipal Corporation had also fixed the necessary licence fee for a year in his proceedings of the year 2010. Hence the respondent Corporation is not justified in publishing the impugned tender notification calling for tenders from the public for the collection of parking fee in the temporarily constructed central market at Mattuthavani.
3. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation would submit that there was no auction conducted and by virtue of any such public auction, the appellant was not granted with a licence. As an interim arrangement and also keeping the interest of the general public, the appellant was granted temporary licence for a period of one year to collect parking fee from the vehicles by paying the monthly licence fees till the establishment of the permanent central market at Mattuthavani. The Government Order referred to by the appellant would be applicable only in case of licence having been granted permanently to a licensee who had participated in the auction and not otherwise. In any event, no licensee can seek for renewal/extension as a matter of right when the Corporation had decided to go for public auction calling for tenders from the public in order to augment the revenue of the Corporation. With these submissions, the learned counsel for the Corporation prayed for the dismissal of the writ appeal.
4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The Government periodically issue orders governing the grant of licence to the various persons which are to be followed by the Corporations covered under the orders. One such order is G.O.Ms.No.85, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 19.7.2000. That Government Order prescribed a period of one year for the grant of lease or licence, as the case may be. By a subsequent G.O.Ms.No.181, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 19.9.2008, the licence was for a period of three years. G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 is in regard to the procedures to be followed in the grant of licence. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the period of one year, which was extended to three years, would be applicable to those licensees whose licences were in force on the date of issuance of that Government Order. On that basis, the appellant seeks for a direction that he should be allowed to continue for the remaining period to collect the parking fee in the central market at Mattuthavani. We have carefully perused the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. The said Government Order, of course, is applicable to the grant of licence for collection of parking fee in the cycle stand as well. By that Government Order, only the period has been extended from one year to three years. In paragraph-3 of the said Government Order, it is made clear that the said order would be applicable to the licences granted to the individuals only after the said Government Order came to be passed. It is further made clear that the said order is not applicable to the existing licensees, be it permanent or temporary. In other words, the Government Order contemplates that wherever the licences are granted after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009, the licensees will have a period of three years and by that Government Order, we cannot read that the existing licensees, be it permanent or temporary, would be entitled to the extension or renewal of licence for a period of three years. This Government Order is relied upon by the appellant to contend that it applies to the licence for collection of parking fee in the cycle stand and to this extent, there cannot be any dispute. But the question raised before us is whether the said Government Order is applicable to the appellant or not.
5. The further contention of the appellant is that by the resolution dated 22.1.2010, the Corporation has resolved to allow even the existing licensees to collect parking fee for a period of three years. We have carefully perused the said resolution as well. Urgent Agenda No.7 of the said resolution states that in view of the shifting of the central market from near the Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple to Mattuthavani, the licensee is entitled to collect such parking fee in the temporarily constructed market place as well at Mattuthavani. This resolution, in our view, cannot be relied upon by the appellant for two reasons. Firstly, if the resolution is read as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be contrary to the Government Order dated 25.5.2009, which does not speak of the renewal of licence for a further period of two years in respect of the existing licensees. Secondly, a resolution cannot be made contrary to the Government Order. That apart, the resolution, which has been much relied upon by the appellant, does not in any way give a right for an automatic renewal for a further period of two years. These two aspects have been considered by the learned single Judge, where the learned Judge has held that as the appellant had been granted the licence to collect the parking fee only on temporary basis by paying the monthly licence fee, he would not be entitled to place reliance on the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. That finding, in our view, needs no interference.
6. In the award of public largesse, particularly involving the revenue, the municipal Corporation should have the paramount interest of augmenting the revenue. The appellant, though claims to be a licensee, factually he could not establish before this Court that the said licence was granted after he participated in the public auction by way of submitting his tender. From the counter affidavit of the respondent Corporation, it is clear that the appellant was granted the licence only to meet out the immediate crisis in view of the decision taken by the Corporation to shift the central market from near the Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple to the central market at Mattuthavani and there was no auction held. On the basis of that temporary arrangement, the appellant cannot claim as a matter of right that he should be allowed to continue the collection of parking fee for a period of three years. Even otherwise, as we have already held that the Government Order dated 25.5.2009 would be applicable only for future grant of licence and not to the existing licensees. We may also point out that even in case of the Government Orders granting such benefit, those Government Orders should be considered and interpreted to be of advantage to the Corporation and not to the licensee. This again is on the principle of augmenting the revenue to the Corporation. As the appellant had not satisfied this Court as to his entitlement for the renewal of licence for a further period of two years, though he has relied upon the Government Order dated 25.5.2009, we are not inclined to accept the said contention and in that view, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 is also dismissed. No costs.
ss To
1. The Commissioner Madurai City Municipal Corporation Tallakulam Madurai