IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 24.07.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.NOs.3820 to 3823 and 4976 OF 2009 ...... P. Mahadevan ...Petitioner (In WP No.3820/2009) G. Parvathi ...Petitioner (In WP No.3821/2009) P. Kumaravel ...Petitioner (In WP No.3822/2009) S. Vahidha ...Petitioner (In WP No.3823/2009) C. P. Madavan ...Petitioner (In WP No.4976/2009) Vs. 1.Executive Officer, Chinnaselam Township, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. 2.The Director of Townships, Kuralagam, Chennai.108. ...Respondents (In WP Nos.3820 to 3282 & 4976/2009) Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ India praying to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the Respondent to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner/s for the shop Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, and 2 respectively in Chinnaselam New Bus Terminus complex in Kallakuruchi Taluk, Villupuram District as per G.O.Ms.No. 92, dated 3.7.2007 Townships Administration and Water Supply (River-4) Department. For Petitioner/s : M/s. V. Manohar For Respondents : Mr. M. Dhandapani Spl. Govt. Pleader COMMON ORDER The petitioner in each one of the case claims to be in occupation of the petty shops in the respondent panchayat bus stand based on an auction conducted on 24.3.2005. The petitioners claim extension of licence based on G.O.No. 92, dated 3.7.2007. The respondents, however, without extending the licence, have taken steps to evict the petitioners from the shop on the ground that the enhanced amount in terms of the Government Order has not been properly paid from time to time. These writ petitions are filed for extension of the licence period in accordance with the G.O. No. 92, dated 3.7.2007. 2. A counter has been filed by the respondent panchayat wherein, it has been stated that the claim of the petitioners that an auction was conducted on 24.3.2005, which is supported by the document Nos. 1 to 12 in the typed set of papers, are not documents of the Town Panchayat and they are false documents. It is further stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit that the documents 1 to 12 do not relate to Town Panchayat. 3. Since the respondents have disputed the auction said to have been conducted on 24.3.2005 and emphasized the same in the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Officer and further on going through the records of the panchayat, the issue with regard to the claim of the petitioners for extension of the licence period will have to be agitated before the Civil Court and not before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the facts are in dispute, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the rival claims. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in each of the case had approached the civil Court for appropriate relief on the same issue. The petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedy before the Civil Court in the pending proceedings in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that some amount has been deposited pursuant to the interim order of this Court with the respondent and that the said amount may be utilised for the purpose of settling the claim subject to the result of the Civil Court proceedings. The same is recorded. 6. In view of the above, without going into the merits and demerits of the issue and considering the pendency of the Civil Suit on the same issue, these writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2009 (10 petitions) connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To 1.Executive Officer, Chinnaselam Township, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. 2. The Director of Townships, Kuralagam, Chennai.108. +1cc to Mr.M.Dandapani,Advocate Sr 34666 +5cc to M/s.V.Manohar, Advocate Sr 34947 AKR(CO) km/4.8. WP Nos.3820 to 3823 and 4976 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/