High Court · 2025

W.P.No.2896 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 15.07.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALAW.P.No.2896 of 2021andW.M.P.No.3242 of 2021M.Nagarajan...Petitioner-Vs-1.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajar Maligai, No.2, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.2.The Chief Executive Officer, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajar Maligai, No.2, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.3.V.Mani...RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 in regularizing the pavement shop namely T/C/P 11 in favour of the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2896 of 2021see that no nailing or clamping and similarly in erasing the advertising materials like the name of the shop, phone numbers, licence number and other particulars inscribed at the outer wall of the petitioner's shop namely T/C 44 are carried out by the 3rd respondent and further direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to allot pavement shop Number T/C/P 11 to the petitioner on payment of charges as per the tariff available with CMDA after allotting an alternative shop to the 3rd respondent that are lying vacant on the opposite side of the petitioner's shop T/C 44 and pass such further orders.For Petitioner:Mr.D.Ashok KumarFor R1 & R2:M/s.P.Veena Suresh,Standing Counselfor RR1 and 2 O R D E RThis writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 in regularizing the pavement shop namely T/C/P 11 in favour of the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to see that no nailing or clamping and similarly in erasing the advertising materials like the name of the shop, phone numbers, licence number and other particulars inscribed at the outer wall of the petitioner's shop namely T/C 44 are carried out by the 3rd respondent and further direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to allot pavement shop Number T/C/P 11 to the petitioner on payment of charges as per the tariff available with CMDA after allotting an alternative shop to the 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2896 of 20213rd respondent that are lying vacant on the opposite side of the petitioner's shop T/C 44.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been running a retail fruit business from Shop No. T/C 44 in the Wholesale Koyambedu Market Complex since 2004. Adjacent to his shop lies a platform space, including kiosk/pavement shops T/C/P10 and T/C/P11, which the petitioner claims are used primarily for handling goods and movement (ingress and egress) related to his business. Despite long-standing possession and requests made to the authorities for allotment of the said kiosk (T/C/P11), no action has been taken. Meanwhile, the 3rd respondent has allegedly attempted to encroach upon the outer wall of the petitioner’s shop by erasing publicity details and installing fixtures, which the petitioner claims to be unlawful. Aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities and the conduct of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has been continuously in possession and use of the space next to the petitioner's shop, including kiosks T/C/P10 and T/C/P11, for nearly 20 years, and that they are 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2896 of 2021integral to his business operations. He argues that the platform space cannot be bifurcated or allotted to anyone else, especially since it functions as a utility extension of Shop No. T/C 44. The petitioner is willing to pay the necessary charges as per CMDA’s tariff and asserts that allotting the space to him would generate revenue for the Government. He further alleges that the 3rd respondent’s acts of nailing, clamping, and erasing signage from the petitioner's shop wall are illegal and disruptive. He submits that the petitioner has a prima facie case and seeks a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from regularising the kiosk in favour of the 3rd respondent and instead allot it to him. He also seeks interim protection against further tampering with his shop premises.4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 are at idem that the matter was covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.21185 of 2017 dated 10.10.2018, which held as follows:“3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Hon'ble Divisional Bench of this Court has passed an order on similar issue in W.P.Nos. 28520 and 28521 of 2011 on 28.07.2015. The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder:4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2896 of 2021"23. For the reasond, wontioned berein above, we have no hesitation to hold that the allottees/purchasers have merely the right to enjoy the common areas such as roads, pathway, passage, corridore, verandah, parking, drainage, water edirse, etc., and cannot claim ownership of the same.24. However we make it cleat that if the respondent-authority decides to allot Stform shops, the terms and conditions of the Act, 1996 have to be strictly adhered to to at the area is declared as the wholesale marked area in respect of congestion in the area.25. Before parting with the matter, we would like to place on record that the Gourt Commissioner has submitted a fair report clearly observing that there is no obstruction to the ingress and egress to the petitioners shops and the also inflow and outflow of air and light to their shops is not affected. However, there is the problem of congestion, which ought to be effectively addressed at first. There is no dispute that on inspection, it was found that there were several encroachments and the common space was also used by the allottees for keeping their goods. It is also not in dispute that the allocation of platform on the service road to new shops may add to the congestion in the already heavily choked and clogged wholesale shopping complex. Though the said platforms were not used as service roads, the service road is left intact for loading and unloading of goods by the shop owners and for garbage vans and other such services. Some small kiosks were already found located on the service road. But, service road is not available for being converted into shopping lanes as there are already several encroachers. The other Technical member has submitted the separate report in tune with the official stand of the respondent authority.26. Noticing the said report and also certain photographs produced before us, it is evident that the area in question is clogged and there in Severe congestion in the area. This congestion was on account of the alleged encroachers on the service road also. No doubt, the platform is not a part of service road and also, the ownership and title do not vest with the allottees or the purchasers. However, it is for the authority to ensure that the market complex is neat and clean with clear service road, wherein, the movement of people and vans is easily possible. Even if allotments are made on the platform shops they should be strictly regulated in such a way that they do not spread their trading activity outside the allotted area. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2896 of 2021The original allottees/vendors be also directed to conform to the terms and conditions and not to create any congestion in the open space available for the benefit of all, by dumping their goods outside the alloted area.4. The Hon'ble Division Bench in para 25, clarified that based on the Advocate Commissioner report, nobobstruction to the ingress and egress to the petitioners shops and inflow and outflow of air and light to their shops is not affected.5. This Court is of an opinion that the said observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench is to be maintained in respect of the shop belongs to the writ petitioner also. When the Advocate Commissioner during the relevant point of time found that the ingress and egress are not affected. The same position should be allowed to be continued even in future by the respondents and any such obstructions will cause prejudice to the interest of the writ petitioner. This being the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the respondents are bound to follow the same in respect of the premises belongs to the writ petitioner also.6. In view of the above ratio laid down by this Court, the 2nd respondent is directed to follow the above observations as given by this Court in W.P.No. 21185 of 2017 dated 10.10.2018,In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.15.07.2025cda/dsnIndex : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking order6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2896 of 2021To1.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajar Maligai, No.2, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.2.The Chief Executive Officer, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajar Maligai, No.2, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.N.MALA, J.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2896 of 2021cda/dsnW.P.No.2896 of 202115.07.20258/8