Arumugam Krishnakumar .A vs. The Commissioner

Held

The Court held that Aavin, being an undertaking of the Tamil Nadu State Government, falls under the category of entities eligible for allotment without a public tender, as stated in paragraph 7 of the first respondent's counter affidavit. The Court found no impediment for the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation positively and allot a proper location for his Aavin Milk Booth, especially since the second respondent had already made a recommendation to the first respondent. The Court directed the first respondent to forthwith consider the petition and act positively by allotting a proper space in the new shopping complex constructed under the Smart City scheme in the old bus stand, thereby facilitating the petitioner to run his Aavin milk Booth based on the license issued by the second respondent. The Court allowed the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Arumugam Krishnakumar, a concessionaire for Aavin milk products, operated a booth at the Thoothukudi old bus stand since 2005. The bus stand was demolished for a Smart City project. The petitioner was temporarily allotted a booth at SAV school playground. Following the construction of a new bus stand complex, the petitioner represented for a site in the new complex. The Thoothukudi Municipal Corporation (first respondent) stated that shops in the new complex were to be allotted via auction, except for government departments or PSUs. The Thoothukudi District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd (second respondent) supported the petitioner's claim, having previously recommended a space for him and submitted a proposal to the Corporation for an Aavin shop in the new complex. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to allot a place for his Aavin shop in the new bus stand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as a concessionaire of a State-owned undertaking (Aavin), is eligible for allotment of a shop in the new bus stand commercial complex without public auction, given that such allotments are permissible for Central Government departments, State Government departments, or Public Sector Undertakings. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that Aavin is a State-owned union and therefore, the Corporation should consider his representation positively and allot him a space in the new shopping complex, especially since the second respondent had already submitted a proposal to the first respondent. He argued that he was continuously prevented from continuing his business and utilizing his license. Revenue/State's argument (First Respondent): The Corporation argued that no place is available for ground rent in the new bus stand due to traffic constraints and that all ground floor shops have been allotted. They further submitted that only Central Government departments, State Government departments, or Public Sector Undertakings can get a shop without public auction, and Aavin had not requested a shop in the complex, making it impossible to consider the petitioner's representation positively without an auction. They also alleged the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands. Revenue/State's argument (Second Respondent): The second respondent supported the petitioner, stating that they had recommended a space for him previously and submitted a proposal to the first respondent for an Aavin shop in the new complex, but the first respondent had not acted upon it.