IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 19-08-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.3943 and 3944 of 2001 W.P.No.3943 of 2001: The Chennai Fruit Commission Agent's Association T/D, 101, Anna Fruit Market, Koyambedu, chennai-600 092, rep.. by its Secretary, Mr.Mohamed Rafi .. Petitioner. Versus The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2.Ramachandran (Impleaded as per the order of the Court, dated 30.3.2005, by PDDJ in W.M.P.No.2766 of 2005) .. Respondents. W.P.No.3943 of 2001: A.Dillibabu .. Petitioner. Versus The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. .. Respondent. Prayers in W.P.No.3943 of 2001: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from granting any right in the form of permission, licence, allotment or sale to the retail vendors or any third parties other than the allottees of the shops constructed as per the respondent's approved Koyambedu whole sale fruit market complex plan, dated 12.12.1988, permitting them to carry on any trade in the common builtup areas like platforms, shopping and service streets, Court yard etc., provided within the Koyambedu Whole sale fruit Market Complex. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayers in W.P.No.3944 of 2001: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from granting any right in the form of permission, licence, allotment or sale to the retail vendors or any third parties other than the allottees of the shops constructed as per the respondent's approved Koyambedu whole sale fruit market complex plan, dated 12.12.1988, permitting them to carry on any trade in the common builtup areas like platforms, shopping and service streets, Court yard etc., provided within the Koyambedu Whole sale fruit Market Complex. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Thanka Sivan For Respondents : Mr.C.Kathiravan (R1) Mr.S.Parthasarathy (R2) O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner Association has been incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and it consists of members who are wholesale fruit merchants having shops in Koyambedu wholesale fruit market. The Koyambedu wholesale market had been constructed by collecting funds from the proposed allottees of the shops in the market. The said scheme had been promoted with a view to shift the wholesale market which was earlier situated in the George Town, Kothavalchavadi Area. The Koyambedu wholesale market has been constructed involving several crores of rupees. The members of the petitioner Association were given allotment of shops in the wholesale fruit market at Koyambedu on payment of huge costs fixed by the respondent. 3. While developing the new market project, various facilities like open parking place for vehicles, drainage facilities, court yard and toilet facilities in the shops, separate verandahs for the use of wholesale market for transporting their goods, separate service streets for the use of customers etc., had been provided, as per the plan. There are 456 shops in the wholesale fruit market complex and a large number of shops are under the occupation of the members of the petitioner Association. While so, a number of unauthorised hawkers had entered the market complex and they were causing serious problems for the occupants of the shops, who were carrying on their trade in fruits, vegetables and flowers. The unauthorised hawkers had formed into a group and had approached the first respondent for allotment of open areas, available with the market complex. In such circumstances, the petitioner Association had submitted a representation, dated 7.8.98, requesting the first respondent not to grant any permission or allotment of any portion of the market complex to unauthorised hawkers. However, the first respondent had announced the auctioning of some of the common areas in spite of the protests from the members of the petitioner Association. Therefore, the petitioner Association has been constrained to file the present writ petition, praying for the reliefs stated therein, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that the Koyambedu wholesale market complex had been constructed to decongest the Central business District of George Town area and to reduce the traffic congestion in the City of Chennai. The market complex has Vegetable, Fruit and Flower Markets and it has several facilities such as lorry and truck parking places, roads, common amenities, godowns, restaurants, petty shops, auction hall etc., which are maintained by the first respondent. The Koyambedu wholesale market complex has been constructed to accommodate George Town Wholesale and Semi Wholesale Perishable Goods Merchants by giving them preferential treatment in allotment. The petitioner Association had recommended for the allotment of shops to the various individuals who were carrying on Semi-Wholesale business in George Town area. Only after necessary consultations with the various associations of Perishable Wholesale Traders of George Town area, the new market had been designed to accommodate all the wholesale traders including the Semi-Wholesale Traders of Vegetables, Fruits and Flowers. 5. As a statutory authority, the first respondent has the responsibility, not only towards the regular wholesale traders, but also to the Semi-Wholesale traders of vegetables, fruits and flowers. Further, any allotment or any activity in the area, earmarked as Platform shops, will not interfere with the business of wholesale traders and it would not in any way infringe on the rights of the members of the petitioner Association. Since the members of the petitioner Association were allotted specific areas consisting of loading and unloading bay, storage place and courtyard for their use, they cannot make any claim with regard to the common platform areas belonging to Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and it has to be allotted to the semi-wholesale dealers and the cost of the Platform Shops had been considered as a factor while finalising the price of the shops in the other areas. The members of the petitioner Association are trying to create monopoly in the fruit market and are attempting to drive away the Semi-Wholesale dealers from the market, who have equal rights and responsibilities for the development of the market area. The business of wholesale traders will not affect in any way by the allottees of the platform shops. However, the Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex has been built with huge amount of funds with the financial support of HUDCO, under the Self-Finance scheme. While so, the members of the petitioner Association do not have exclusive right over the areas in the market complex which have not been allotted to them or earmarked for their specific use. 6. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that unauthorised hawkers would not be permitted to vend their products within the Koyambedu Market area. A Market Management Committee consisting of the high ranking officials of the respondent authority, Traders and the Managers of the Market Complex have been appointed to regulate the trading activities in the Koyambedu Market Complex. Action would be taken against the unauthorised hawkers and they would be evicted if they are found to be trading, unauthorisedly, within the market complex. Further, if the members of the petitioner Association https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ find any such unauthorised activities being carried on, it is open to them to bring it to the knowledge of the Market Management Committee to take necessary action against the unauthorised hawkers. It is open to the members of the petitioner Association to lodge complaints with the said Committee, with regard to any of their grievances that may arise in future. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, this Court is of the view that no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands closed. No costs. 8. Since the writ petition in W.P.No.3944 of 2001 has been filed by the petitioner, seeking for the same relief, as sought for in the writ petition in W.P.No.3943 of 2001, this writ petition is also closed, as no further orders are required to be passed therein. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2 cc To Mr.C.Kathiravan, Advocate, SR.46341. 1 cc To Mr.S.Thankasivan, Advocate, SR.46524. Writ Petition No.3943 and 3944 of 2001 SSV(CO) RVL 17.10.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/