WP(MD)/18549/2026 of B.Kannan Vs The District Collector on 16 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan J.) W.P. (MD) No. 18549 of 2026 has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondents 1 and 2 to provide basic amenities at the weekly market situated in Survey Nos. 3/3B, 3/5B, and 3/6 of the 2nd Respondent Town Panchayat, in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 423 of 2016, dated 25.10.2017, and W.P. (MD) No. 17538 of 2019, dated 14.11.2025, and consequently to forbear the 2nd Respondent from conducting any tender- cum-auction until such directions are complied with.

2. W.P. (MD) No. 22407 of 2026 has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that the 4th Respondent strictly implements the resolution dated 01.07.2026 passed by the Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat and, consequently, to forbear Respondents 1 to 4 from awarding any tender to any person until the said resolution is implemented.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that both petitioners are elected Councillors representing Ward Nos. 1 and 2 of the Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat. Originally, the weekly market was functioning at Matai Oorani in Survey No. 16/14 without basic amenities. Pursuant to a public interest litigation filed in W.P. (MD) No. 423 of 2016, this Court, by order dated 25.10.2017, held that permanent structures could not be erected in a water body. However, the authorities were directed to provide basic amenities, including sanitation facilities, pathways, and public toilets. Subsequently, the market was shifted to Survey Nos. 3/3B, 3/5B, and 3/6 at Nelmudikkarai Village, in lands belonging to Aruppukottai Municipality. Owing to the jurisdictional overlap, W.P. (MD) No. 17538 of 2019 was filed. By order dated 14.11.2025, this Court earmarked an extent of one acre for the weekly market and directed that 50% of the collections be shared with Aruppukottai Municipality.

4. The petitioners alleged that basic amenities had not been provided at the market site. Instead, the Executive Officer issued a tender notification dated 20.06.2026, fixing the upset price at 20,00,000/- ₹

without obtaining the prior concurrence of the Council. Although a resolution concerning the market was passed by the Council on 01.07.2026, the Executive Officer allegedly failed to implement the same, necessitating the filing of the present writ petitions.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the impleading petitioner in W.M.P. (MD) No. 21894 of 2026 submitted that, following a challenge to the earlier tender process in W.P. (MD) No. 18524 of 2026, a fresh tender notification was issued on 03.07.2026 in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act. In the tender-cum- auction conducted on 23.07.2026, seven bidders participated, and the impleading petitioner emerged as the highest bidder, offering Rs.29,01,000/- for the weekly market and Rs.9,04,500/- for the daily market. The impleading petitioner further submitted that the entire earnest money deposit (EMD), tender amount, GST, and administrative charges had been paid as required on or before 18.08.2026. By order dated 09.09.2026, this Court took note of the proceedings of the Director of Municipal Administration in Na.Ka. No.11612/2026/G2, dated

03.09.2026, directing the Executive Officer to place the final bid before the Town Panchayat Council on or before 16.09.2026. However, the work order had not been issued, citing the pendency of the present writ petitions.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. (MD) No. 22407 of 2026 and Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P. (MD) No. 18549 of 2026 submitted that the writ petitions had been filed with ulterior motives. He contended that both petitioners are Councillors of the Thiruppuvanam Selection Grade Town Panchayat and that adequate amenities, including drinking water and toilet facilities, had already been provided at the market. He further submitted that no complaints had been received from market users regarding the absence of such facilities. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the writ petitions could not be regarded as genuine public interest litigations.

7. It was further contended that, being elected Ward Councillors, the petitioners had access to the administrative mechanisms of the Town Panchayat and could have raised their grievances during Council meetings. Instead of discharging their duties through the appropriate administrative channels, they had approached this Court in the guise of public interest litigants. The learned Additional Advocate General also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners’ relatives were occupying municipal shops despite substantial rental arrears and that house tax and other municipal dues had remained unpaid for more than three years. He further alleged that, after earlier challenges instituted through proxy litigants had failed, the petitioners had initiated the present proceedings to obstruct the confirmation of the tender.

8. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the impleading petitioner, and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. Perused the materials available on record.

9. Admittedly, both petitioners are elected Councillors of the Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat. The principal grievance raised in these writ petitions concerns the implementation of a resolution passed by the Town Panchayat and the provision of basic amenities at the weekly market. Being elected representatives of the local body, the petitioners are expected to discharge their statutory and administrative responsibilities and to utilise the appropriate forums available within the

Town Panchayat to address local grievances. However, the petitioners have approached this Court without establishing that they had submitted formal representations to the Executive Officer or exhausted the available administrative mechanisms before instituting the present proceedings. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that adequate basic amenities, including drinking water and toilet facilities, had already been provided at the market site. The photographs and other materials placed on record by the respondents lend support to their contention that such facilities are available and functioning. In the absence of sufficient material to establish otherwise, the petitioners’ allegation that basic amenities have not been provided cannot be accepted.

10. In the present case, the petitioners, being sitting Ward Councillors, have access to the proceedings of the Council and the administrative machinery of the Town Panchayat. They have failed to demonstrate that they made appropriate representations or exhausted the available administrative remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.

11. The allegations regarding the outstanding municipal dues of the petitioners’ relatives have also been brought to the notice of this Court by the respondents. While such allegations, by themselves, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of mala fides, the petitioners are nevertheless required to establish that the present proceedings have been instituted bona fide and in furtherance of a genuine public interest. Having regard to the materials placed on record and the circumstances of the case, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioners have established such bona fides. As regards the tender process, the records indicate that the tender-cum- auction was conducted pursuant to the subsequent tender notification dated 03.07.2026, following the earlier challenge before this Court. The impleading petitioner emerged as the highest bidder, offering Rs.29,01,000/- for the weekly market, as against the upset price of Rs.20,00,000/-, and Rs.9,04,500/- for the daily market. It has also been submitted that the requisite amounts, together with applicable taxes and charges, have been deposited in full.

12. In these circumstances, the continued withholding of the work order, solely on account of the pendency of the present writ petitions, has implications for the municipal administration and the revenue of the local body. No sufficient grounds have been made out to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus as sought for by the petitioners.

13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have failed to establish their entitlement to the relief sought for in these writ petitions. Accordingly, both writ petitions and W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 21894 and 21360 of 2026 are dismissed. Consequently, other connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. (P.V.,J.) (R.P.,J.) 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AM

To

1. The Director Municipal Administration, No.75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalai Nagar, Chennai - 600028

2. The Regional Director, Municipal Administration, No.294, Melakkal Main Road, Kochadai, Madurai- 625016

3. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

4. The Executive Officer, Thiruppuvanam Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Sivagangai District.

5. The Chairman, Tirupuvanam Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Sivagangai District.

P.VELMURUGAN, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J. AM WP(MD) Nos. 18549 & 22407 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.21360 & 21894 of 2026 16-10-2026