Madurai Corporation Cannot Push Displaced Petty-Shop Owner to Street Vending Committee: Madras High Court Orders Alternate Site, Warns of ₹1 Lakh Costs

The petitioner ran a licensed petty shop on New Natham Road, Madurai, until he was evicted for a flyover project in 2019; a 2020 order of the High Court asked the Madurai Corporation to allot him an alternate site, but none was given. In this second writ petition, the Corporation said it could not provide a site and advised him to approach the Street Vending Committee (Paras 2–7). The Court rejected that stand, holding that it was for the Corporation Commissioner either to allot a site himself or to direct the Street Vending Committee to do so, and criticised the officers' lethargy towards a common man who had been without his livelihood for nearly six years (Para 9). It directed the Commissioner to forthwith allot a site at Keela Avani Moola Veedhi, Madurai, and listed the matter for compliance on 06.11.2026, warning of ₹1,00,000 costs on default (Paras 10–11).

Key Proposition: Where a Corporation licensee's petty shop is displaced by a public project and a court order to allot an alternate site remains unimplemented, the Corporation cannot shift the burden to the licensee by asking him to approach the Street Vending Committee; the Commissioner must allot a site himself or direct the Committee to do so.

Background / Synopsis :

The petty shop (about 5 × 6 feet), near the Reserve Line bus stop on New Natham Road, Madurai, was allotted by the Corporation to one P. Shanmugasundaram in 2007 and transferred to the petitioner with the Corporation's approval after January 2011. (Para 2)

2016: the Highways Divisional Engineer tried to evict him for road widening; in W.P.(MD) No. 2143 of 2016 the Court restrained eviction. 22.02.2018: notification for a flyover on Natham Road; NHAI took over the area. According to the petitioner, on 16.08.2019 NHAI called him an encroacher and evicted him without a hearing, saying the interim order did not bind it. (Paras 3–4)

24.09.2020: in W.P.(MD) No. 10430 of 2020, the Court recorded that he was a Corporation licensee and said the Corporation could allot an unobjectionable site that pedestrians do not use; the Corporation did not comply. (Para 5)

Relief sought: a mandamus directing the Corporation Commissioner to allot an alternate site for the petty shop in light of the 2020 order. (Para 1)

Issues For Consideration :

• Whether the Corporation could decline to allot an alternate site and instead ask the petitioner to approach the Street Vending Committee.
• What directions should issue given the continuing non-compliance with the 2020 order.
• Submissions Of Parties :
• Petitioner:
• He was a licensee of the Corporation, evicted without a hearing despite a subsisting interim order, and the 2020 order to allot an alternate site has not been complied with. (Paras 2–5)
• Respondents 3 and 4 (Madurai Corporation):
• On his representation dated 16.03.2024, engineers inspected the sites he asked for. The site near the Narayanapuram Commercial Complex overhead tank was PWD land in the Oduvar Kanmoi tank area, and the complex itself is due for demolition. (Para 6)
• Keela Avani Moola Veedhi is a highly congested traffic zone; the Corporation cannot provide an alternate site, and the petitioner may approach the Street Vending Committee. (Para 7)
• Court's Observations & Analysis :
• Re: Issue (i): Referral to the Street Vending Committee
• The Court found the suggestion to approach the Street Vending Committee untenable: even on that footing, the Commissioner had to direct the Committee to allot a site at once. (Para 9)
• The counter affidavit was filed with lethargy and without regard to a common man who had run the shop for years and had been without it for nearly six years. (Para 9)
• Held: the Commissioner must forthwith allot a site at Keela Avani Moola Veedhi, either by his own order or by directing the Street Vending Committee. (Para 10)
• Re: Issue (ii): Compliance
• Held: the matter is listed for compliance on 06.11.2026, and failure to comply by 05.11.2026 will attract costs of ₹1,00,000 on the Commissioner. (Para 11)
• Notable Observations: “The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, that the petitioner may approach the Street Vending Committee, seems quite ridiculous.” (Para 9); “Such a situation is abominable and would prove the lethargy of the officers in-charge who are to establish a welfare state on behalf of the Government.” (Para 9)

Decision & Directions :

1. The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, shall forthwith allot a place for the petitioner's petty shop at Keela Avani Moola Veedhi, Madurai, by his own order or by directing the Street Vending Committee. (Para 10)

2. Compliance in letter and spirit is due by 05.11.2026; the matter is listed ‘for compliance’ on 06.11.2026. (Para 11)

3. Failure to comply will warrant costs of ₹1,00,000 on the Commissioner. (Para 11)

Legal Provisions Discussed & Precedents Cited :

• Constitution of India – Article 226 – writ of mandamus sought to enforce allotment of an alternate site.
• Street Vending Committee – the Corporation's suggested forum; the order does not name the governing statute.
• W.P.(MD) No. 2143 of 2016 (Madras High Court, Madurai Bench) – interim injunction against eviction – Referred to.
• W.P.(MD) No. 10430 of 2020, order dated 24.09.2020 (Madras High Court, Madurai Bench) – direction to consider an alternate site – Followed / enforced.
• Unnamed Division Bench mandate of the Madras High Court, mentioned in the 2020 order – Referred to.

Case Details :

• Case / Party Name: M. Navaneethakrishnan v. (1) The Divisional Engineer, Highways (Constructions and Maintenance), K. Pudur, Madurai; (2) The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai; (3) The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation; (4) The Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Madurai Corporation
• Case Number(s): W.P.(MD) No. 8688 of 2024
• Coram / Judges: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice L. Victoria Gowri – Single Judge
• Counsel Appearances: For the Petitioner: M/s S. Satheesh Kumar. For Respondent 1: Mr. S. Sivasubramanian, Government Advocate (Civil Side). For Respondent 2: Mr. P. Karthick, Standing Counsel. For Respondents 3 and 4: M/s S. Devasena, Standing Counsel.

Disclaimer: This summary is an editorial aid and does not form part of the judgment. Refer to the original judgment before citing.