Judgment · High Court

WP No. 32834 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12-01-2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANWP No. 32834 of 2025inWMP Nos. 36767 to 36769 & 38350 of 20251.A.Balasubramaniyan2.Balamurugan3.N.Kumaravel4.S.Ganesan5.R.Muthuraman6.R.Ragupathi7.C.Mathivanan8.R.Suresh Kumar9.R.Shankar10.K.Ramesh11.D.Senthil Kumar12.S.Amsavalli13.S.Selvi14.S.Maragatham15.S.KannagiPetitioner(s)VsThe CommissionerMayiladuthurai Municipality, Mayiladuthurai Town, Mayiladuthurai District. Respondent(s)PRAYERWrit Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2418/2025/A2 dated 13.08.2025 and quash the Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32834 of 2025same, further direct the respondent to allot 50% of the shops out of 49 shops, being constructed in New Bus Stand of the respondent situated at Manakkudi Village, Mayiladuthurai District. For Petitioner(s):Mr.B.JawaharFor Respondent(s):Dr.T.SeenivasanSpecial Government PleaderORDERWith the consent of the learned counsels, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

I heard Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Dr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.

The matter relates to the allotment of shops in the new bus stand at Manakkudi Village, Mayiladuthurai Taluk and District. It is not in dispute across the bar that the property belonged to Dharmapuram Adheenam. The then District Collector of Mayiladuthurai approached the appropriate authorities of Dharmapuram Adheenam and secured permission to purchase the property. Even before the purchase, the petitioners were in occupation of the properties as tenants. Facing the threat of prolonged litigation to evict the tenants, the then Commissioner of Mayiladuthurai Municipality entered into negotiations with Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32834 of 2025the occupants of the shops. He was successful in reaching a negotiated settlement. The minutes of the meeting dated 24.01.2018 are extracted hereunder for ready reference:3/nkw; go kzf; Fo fpuhk epyFj;jifjhuh; fs; nfhhpajw;F Mizah;

mth; fs; ,j;jpl; lkhdJ bghJ kf; fs; kw; Wk; jdpahh; g';fspg;g[ld; bray; gLj;jg; gl cs; sJ/ nkYk;. muR rl;l tpjpfSf;Fl;gl;L jUkg[uk; Mjpdj; jplk; ,Ue;J g[jpa ngUe;J epiyak; miktjw; fhd ,lj; jpid eh';fs; chpa bjhif brYj;jp th';fpa[s;nshk;/ nkYk;. khtl;l Ml;rpah; ,t;tplj; jpw; fhd Kd;EiHt[mDkjpa[k; tH';fpa[s;shh;/ vdnt nkw; go ,lj; jpy; gzp nkw; bfhs; Sk;nghJ vt; tpj ,ila{Wk; Vw;gLj;j TlhJ vdt[k;. nkYk; ,ij kPwp bray; gLnthh; kPJ rl; lgo fhty; Jiw cjtpnahL Mf;fpukpg;g. Mfw; wg; gl;L rk; ke; jg; gl; lth; fs; kPJ tHf;F gjpt[ bra; ag; gLk; vdt[k; mwpt[Wj;jg; gl; lJ/ ,Ug;gpDk; kdpjhgpkhd mog; gilapy; ,t;tplj; jpy; efuhl; rpahy; filfs; fl; lg; gLk;nghJ Kd;Dhpikapd; mog; gilapy; j';fSf;F filfs; tH';fpl eltof; if vLf;fg; gLk;/ cjhuzkhf ,e;efuhl; rpapd; K:yk; 20 filfs; fl; lg; gLkhapd; mjy; 10 filfis bghJ Vyk; tpl;L mjpy; cah;e;j nfs; tp bjhif brYj;jp fil bgw; wth; vt; tst[ bjhif brYj;jpdhnuh me;j bjhifapid eP';fs; brYj;jp bghJ Vyj; jpy; g';F bfhs; shky; j';fSf;F Kd;Dhpik mog; gilapy; mg; nghija efh; kd;w Xg;g[jYld; fil tH';f eltof; if vLf;fg; gLk; vd; gij Mizah; bjhptpj; jhh;/

Despite this understanding, the Municipality wanted to bring the entire shops for auctions. The Municipality has constructed 49 shops, two Restaurants, Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32834 of 2025one ATM, one Cloakroom, one Police Control Room, one TNSTC Booking Office, a Waiting Room and other public conveniences at the new bus stand. In order to augment its income, the respondent had proposed an auction.

On coming to know the fact that the respondent was acting contrary to the understanding dated 24.01.2018 as well as Rule 316 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Body Rules, 2023, the petitioners approached this Court. This Court entertained the writ petition and granted an interim order of stay. On account of this stay, the Commissioner was not in a position to bring all 49 shops to auction.

Hence, an application was filed in W.M.P.No.38350 of 2025 in W.P.No.32834 of 2025 seeking the vacation of the order of stay granted by this Court. After hearing both sides, this Court passed an order permitting the Municipality to bring 33 out of 49 shops for auction. It was also recorded that the petitioners would match the highest bid, made in the auction, in terms of the understanding referred to above. Following this modification, the Commissioner filed an affidavit stating that the tender-cum-auction was held on 30.12.2025. The highest price for Shop No.30, which measures 201 Sq.ft., was fixed at approximately Rs.30,700/-, working out to Rs.152.75 per Sq.ft. Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32834 of 20257. On the previous date of hearing, Mr.B.Jawahar took time to confirm from his clients, whether they were willing to pay this amount for the shops they would occupy. Today, when the matter is called, Mr.B.Jawahar stated that the petitioners had expressed their willingness and are willing to pay for the shops at the rate of Rs.152.75 per Sq.ft.

Mr.B.Jawahar has a further request, he states out of 49 shops, only 10 shops have been taken possession of and the remaining 39 are vacant. He requests that the petitioners be permitted to choose their preferred shops from the remaining 39 shops.

Dr.T.Seenivasan stated that there might be an issue regarding re-auction.

Insofar as the amount that the petitioners have to pay to the respondent, it has been frozen by virtue of the auction conducted on 30.12.2025. The petitioners are not paying the lowest amount for which the shops have been taken, but are going to pay the highest amount that the shops have fetched. That being the situation, even if they have participated in the auction on 30.12.2025, they would have been successful in getting the shops of their choice at the aforesaid rate. Hence, the respondent will permit the petitioners to choose the Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32834 of 2025shops. The petitioners shall be liable to pay Rs.152.75 per Sq.ft for the area under their occupation.