1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.1375 to 1383 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.2 of 2011 (9 MPs)in W.P.(MD).Nos.5356 to 5364 of 2010 The Commissioner, Kuzhithurai Municipality, Vettuvenni, Kanyakumari District. ... Appellant in all the appeals/ Respondent in all the writ petitions Vs. Prakash Kumar ... Respondent in all the appeals/ Petitioner in all the writ petitions Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the common order, dated 15.12.2010, made in W.P.(MD)No.5356 to 5364 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.5356 to 5364 of 2010: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, to call for the documents pertaining to impugned notification issued by the Respondent vide Na.Ka.No.1623/2009/A2 dated 29.01.2010 and quash the same and may consequently direct the Respondent to count the monthly rent from the date of handing over of possession of Shop Nos.G4, F10, G5, F11, F8, F12, F9, G8 and G9 respectively after completing all the construction works of the commercial complex namely Chairman P.P.Munusamy Memorial Complex-Kuzhithurai Municipality. For appellant in all the appeals .. Mr.C.Raja Kumar For respondent in all the appeals .. Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.) These appeals are preferred challenging the order of the writ Court, dated 15.12.2010, made in W.P.(MD).Nos.5356 to 5364 of 2010, allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein and declaring that the appellant can demand rent from the respondent only from the date of handing over of the keys. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. By mutual consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the writ appeals themselves are taken up for final hearing. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant was not given enough opportunity to raise his objections in respect of the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. It is contended that the Advocate Commissioner's report does not contain the actual state of affairs. The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that in respect of certain shops, keys have already been handed over and as such, the Municipality viz., the appellant is entitled to demand rent from them. The learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that no opportunity was afforded for filing the additional typed set of papers before passing the final orders in the writ petitions and as such, the order passed by the writ Court warrants interference of this Court. 4. Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the writ Court. It is contended that the order of appointment of Advocate Commissioner was passed by mutual consent of both parties viz., the respondent and the appellant and as such, the appellant may not be any grievance in respect of the appointment of Advocate Commissioner and submission of his report. It is further contended that the writ Court has afforded enough opportunity to the appellant, but the appellant has not chosen to file any objection, inspite of the fact that the said report was submitted as early as on 23.04.2010 and the writ Court passed the order only on 15.12.2010. Such being the position, it cannot be contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was denied opportunity to put forth his objections to the Advocate Commissioner's report. 5. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the order passed by the writ Court and other materials available on record. 6. The main objection and the contention put forward by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is to the effect that the writ Court has not afforded enough opportunity to submit objections of the appellant in respect of the Advocate Commissioner's report. We are unable to countenance such contention for the simple reason that it is pointed out by the writ Court that the Advocate Commissioner's report was filed as early as on 23.04.2010, but the respondent has not chosen to file any reply or objection, even on the date of passing the impugned order, passed by the writ Court on 15.12.2010. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for contending that the appellant was denied opportunity for raising objections or giving reply to the Advocate Commissioner's report. 7. Yet another factor to be borne in mind of this Court is that the said Advocate Commissioner was appointed only by mutual consent of both the parties viz., the appellant as well as the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 It is also pertinent to note that in the Advocate Commissioner's report, it is clearly stated that one of the officials of the appellant was very much present and he has asked the Advocate Commissioner, whether the inspection was over or not and the Advocate Commissioner has informed him that the Inspection was already over and the said official locked the shutter of the shops and took away the keys. Therefore, there may not be any prejudice said to have been caused to the appellant, in respect of the report of the Advocate Commissioner submitted before the Court. It is also relevant to state that the writ Court has granted liberty to the appellant to demand rent form the respondent only from the date of handing over of the keys and as such, the interest of the appellant is not at all affected. 8. In view of the above factors, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not made out any case warranting interference of this Court in the writ Court order dated 15.12.2010. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Commissioner, Kuzhithurai Municipality, Vettuvenni, Kanyakumari District. +9 CCs to Mr.C.Raja Kumar, Advocate (SR.NO.41204) +1 CC to Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar, Advocate (SR.No.41329) Common Judgment in W.A.(MD)Nos.1375 to 1383 of 2011 22.11.2011 gcg NSV/9.12.11/3P/12C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/