In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The common order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications stand closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 15.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.07.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
WA No s .1852 and 1751 of 2026 and CMP No s .16078 and 16690 of 2026
W.A.No.1852 of 2026:
1. M.Arumugam
S/o. Munusamy Gounder Door No. 14/57, Valmiki Street, Salem – 636 001.
2. A.Kadirvel
S/o.Arunachalam,
46/18, AngalammanKovil Street, Kumarasamypatti, Salem- 636 007.
3. A.Pichamuthu
S/o.Arapuli,
534, IranduMalaikadu, Thumbalpatti, Salem – 636 204.
4. V.Ramesh,
S/o. Vaidyalingam,
30/66, Adhiyaman Street, Salem – 636 001.
5. S. Krishnaraj
S/o. Srinivasan, 93/4, RamamoorthyPuthur,
PuthumariammanKovil Post, Salem-636003
6. K. Sundram,
S/o. Kandasamy, 3/146, T.Perumapalayam, MuruganKovil, Salem – 636 122.
7. E.Venkatachalam
S/o.Ezhumalai, 5/112, Kuttakkadu, MettupattiThatanur, Kullampatti, Salem – 636 103.
8. KeerthanaMathes
S/o. Nandakumar, 8/6, Chairman Rajaratnam Street, Aatroram, Salem – 636 001.
9. M. Satheeshkumar,
S/o. Matheswaran, 10/19, Erumapalayam Main Road, Kichipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
10. ValliKumaresan,
W/o. Kumaresan, 2/62, Pachanna Circle,
Vedukathampatti, Thirumalaigiri,
Salem – 636 607
11. K.Vijay,
S/o. Krishnan, 5/171, KattuValavu,
Komberikadu, T.Perumpalayam, Salem – 636 122
12. G. Ravichandran,
S/o. Ganesan, 2/45, Mannargadu, Agraharam, Phulavari, Salem – 636 010.
13. K.Ramesh,
S/o.Krishnan, 51, Shakti Nagar, PuthuMariammanKovil, Salem- 636 003.
14. R.Prabhu,
S/o. Raja, 180, Valmiki Street, Jalalpura,
Salem – 636 001
15. P. Mani,
S/o. Perumal, 2-3-3/2-3P, Vanniyar Street,
Korathupatti, Veeranam, Salem 636122
16. P.Bhoopathi,
S/o.Periyasamy, 10, Milakaikara Street, Salem – 636 001.
17. A. Selvakumar,
S/o. Aadhimoolam, 21, Kesavan Nagar, Kannankurichi, Salem – 636 008.
18. S.Santosh,
S/o. Saravanan, 5/171, KattuValavu,
Komberikadu, T.Perumpalayam, Salem –
636 122
19. A.Sankar,
S/o. AandyGounder, 4-196-1, Oruvankadu, Thumpalpatti, Salem – 636 204.
20. K. Selvakumar,
S/o. Kuppusamy, 1/34, Poththanur, T. Konakapadi, OmalurTaluk, Salem – 636 502.
21. K.Anbu,
S/o. Kandasamy, 5/177, KattuValavu, Komberikadu, T.Perumpalayam, Salem -636 122.
22. K. Mohanraj,
S/oKamaraj, 335, TukkuKadu,
Ramakrishnapuram, Ayodhyapatnam,
Salem – 636 103
23. A. Yuvaraj,
S/o. Annamalai, 166/81, Kumaran
Street-2, Salem – 636 001
24. H. Charanya,
S/o. Harishkumar, 32/44, Arasamaram
Pillayar Kovil, Pattakovil, Salem – 636 001.
25. M. Selvam,
S/o. Mariappan, 37/1, Arasamaram Pillayar
Kovil, Salem – 636 001
26. G. ShanmugamS/o. Kolavindhan, 4-360-3, Mettur, Veeranam Post, Salem – 636 122.
27. M. Bhaskar,
S/o. Manickam, 61/65, Angalamman Street, Salem – 636 001.
28. V. Lavanya,
W/o. Vijay, 5/171, Kattuvala, Komberikadu, T. Perumapalayalam, Salem – 636 122.
29. S. Thayanidhi,
S/o. Srinivasan, 3/16, Chinnanoor, Salem –
636 122
30. G. Srinivasan
S/o.Gopal, 22/8, Krishnan Kovil Street,
Salem – 636 001
31. P. Manikandan
S/o Palanisamy Kaparthan Kadu, Thailanoor Sukuampatti Salem – 636122.
32. N. Manikandan,S/o. Nadesan, 3/360, Moolakadu, Sannyasikundu, Salem -636 015.
33. M. Deenadayalan,
S/o. Mohan, 31, Sathyamoorthy Street, Salem – 636 001.
34. K. Ganesan,
S/o. Kandasamy, 4/54,
VeemanurKattuValavu, NarayaniDadhanur, Veeranam, Salem – 636 122.
35. T. Sasikumar,
S/o.Thangaraj, 82 (2) Valkadu, Allikuttai Post, Salem – 636 003.
36. S.Matheswaran,
S/o.Chellappan, 91/109, Panamarathupatti
Road, Ari AdikkaraiPost, Salem – 636 204
37. M. Vijayakumar,
S/o.Madu, D.No.253, Naduweethi, Salem Veeranam, Salem – 636 122.
38. V.Malar,
S/o.Vijayakumar, 2-53, Mettur, ChinnaVeeranam, Salem – 636 122.
39. E. Easwaran,
S/o. IrusaGoundar, 4/182, Paraikadu, Udaiyapatti Kandasharmam, Salem – 636 140.
40. E.Matheswari,S/o.Eeswaran, 4/182,Paraikadu, Udaiyapatti, Salem – 636 140.
41. P. Kalaichelvi,
S/o. Parasuraman, No.4/171, Mettur,
Sukkampatti Via, Veeranam,
Salem – 636 122
42. Proshith,
S/o.Parasuraman, 2/8, T.Perumpalayam,
Dasanayakkanpatti, Veeranam,
Salem – 636 122
43. G.Kalaichelvam,
S/o. Govindan, 296, Saraswathi Nagar, 2ndLane, PuthumariammanKovil Salem – 636 003.
44. S. Sabarinathan,
S/o. Selvam, 32/14, SoundammanKovil Street, Ammapettai, Salem – 636 003.
45. V.Kumar,
S/o. Vaithiyalingam, D.No. 30/66, Athiyaman Street, Salem – 636 001.
46. K. Sundaram,
S/o. Krishnan, 373(1) Mariamman Kovil Street-2, Allikuttai Salem – 636 003.
47. S. Parthiparaja,
S/o. Selvakumar, 4/111, Amaravati Road, 5thRoad, Salem – 636 004.
48. K.Padmanaphan,S/o. Srinivasan, 93/4, Ramamoorthy Puthur, Salem – 636 003.
49. G. Sathyamoorthy,
S/o. Gopi, 3/8, A-2/19, Vedapatti,
Sukkampatti, T. Perumapalayam, Salem – 636 122
50. K. Yuvan Shankar,S/o. Kathiravan, 253-CC Gandhi Mahan Street, Kichipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
51. C. Prabhakaran,
S/o. Chinnathambi, 22/7, Angalamman Temple, Kumarasamypatti, Astampatti, Salem – 636 007.
52. S.Satheeskumar,
S/o. Sekar, 8, Chairman Rajaratnam Street, Salem – 636 001.
53. M.Rathnavel,
S/o.Marimuthu, 2/242, ChinnaPallakkadu, ChinnaVeeranam, Salem – 636 122.
54. S.Manoharan,
S/o. Sundaram, 373(1) Mariamman Kovil Street-2, Allikuttai, Salem – 636 003.
55. V. Lakshmi,
W/o. Veeramani, 1 81, Muthavalli Mohammed Yakub Street, Bazaar Post, Salem – 636 001.
56. R.Rathnavel,
S/o.Ramaswamy, 31, Nalliyampudur, Kattukottai, Panamarathupatti, Salem – 636 204.
57. P. Parasuraman,
S/o. Periyasamy, 4/171, Mettur, SukkampattiVia, I. Veeranam, Salem – 636 122.
58. S.Srinivasan
S/o.Selvaraj, B-71, Arumugam Nagar 2ndCross, Salem – 636 003.
59. T.Chitra Mani,
S/o. Thiagaraj, 2-P, Valmiki Street,
Salem – 636 001
60. R. Anusuya,
S/o. Ramesh, 51, Shakthi Nagar, Puthu
Mariamman Kovil Street, Salem – 636 003.
61. M. Gopi,
S/o. Murugesan, 22/3, Vanniyar Street, Korathupatti, Veeranam, Salem – 636 122.
62. K.Vasanthi,
W/o. Salaichselvam, 296, Saraswathi Nagar, 2ndLane, PuthuMariammanKovil, Salem – 636 003.
63. R. Sumathi,
W/o. Ramesh, 27-C, Seerangapalayam
Main Road, Kumarasamypatti,
Salem – 636 007
64. Valliammal,
W/o Mohan, Door No. 11/48, Kannan Street, Salem – 636 001.
65. P. Manimaran ( 38 )
S/o Periyasami 45/12, Kuttivathiyar Street, 2nd Agraharam Salem -636001.
66. A. Vijayalakshmi,
W/oEthiraj, 122/20, Muthavalli Mohammed Yakub Street, Salem – 636 001.
67. K.Gomathi,
W/o. Kumaresan, 182, Muthavalli Mohammed Yakub Street, Salem – 636 001.
68. S. Vasuki, S/o. Sekar,107, V.O.C. Nagar, Erumapalayam, Itteri Road, Kichipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
69. R.Santhi,
W/o.Rajamanickam, 418-A, OndhapillaiKaadu, KaliammanKovil,
2ndCross, Kichippalayam, Salem-636 015.
70. D. Sivagami,
W/o. Thangavel 416/1, OnthapillaiKaadu, KaliammanKovil, 2ndCross, Salem – 636 015.
71. S. Rajeshwari,
W/o. Somasundarakadavul, 4/4, Narayan
Street, 2ndAgraharam Salem – 636 001
72. Kannagi,
W/o. Lokanaan, No. 224/755, K.K.V. Compound, Uppumandi, Arisipalayam, Lee Bazaar, Salem – 636 009.
73. P.Gomathi,
W/o.Baskar, 61/65, Angalaman Kovil Street, Salem – 636 001.
74. R. Balamurali,
S/o. Ramasamy, Arasamaram Pillayar Kovil Street, Chinnakadai Road, Salem – 636 001.
75. P. Revathi,
W/o. Balamuruli, Arasamaram PillayarKovil Street, Chinnakadai Street, Salem-636 001.
76. M. Vinoth,
S/o. Mahalingam 4/303-B, Asarikadu, Allikuttai, Salem – 636 003.
77. T. Deenadayalan
S/o. Dharmalingam, 36-B, Vasagasalai, 2ndStreet, Singarapet, Salem – 636 003.
78. T. Murugesan,
S/o. Dharmalingam 36-B, VasagaSalai,
2ndStreet, Singarapet, Salem – 636 003

79. T. Selvamani,
S/oThangavelan, 215, Valmiki Nagar, Salem-636 001.
80. K. Sridhar,
S/o. Karunanidhi, OndhapillaiKaadu, Kichipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
81. V. Thangaponnu,
W/o. Venkatachalam, 112/5, Kuttakkadu, Mettupatti Thathanur, Salem – 636 103.
82. S. Manikandan,
S/o.Srinivasan, 76, Pachamuthu Street, Pattakovil, Salem – 636 001.
83. P. Varadharajan,S/o. Bhupathi, 1 /49, Fatima Nagar, Sannyasingandu, Salem – 636 015.
84. S. Sundar,
S/o. Saravanan, 4/154, Paraikkadu, Udaiyapatti, Salem – 636 140.
85. M.Mohanraj,
S/o.Muthusamy, 2/219-T, ChinnaVeeranam, Salem – 636 122.
86. R. Varadharajan
S/o Rajamanickam 152, Vallalar Salai South Ammapet Ramanathapuram Ammapet Salem 636003.
87. S. Vinothkumar,
S/o. Satheeskumar, 6/179, ThingalSanthai, Minnampally, Salem – 636 106.
88. P. Allimuthu,
S/o. Pacchiyappan, 58/89-E, Railway Line Street, Ponnammapet, Salem – 636 001.
89. V.Malar,
W/o.Venkatachalam, 5/112, Kuttakkad, MettupattiDadanur, Salem – 636 103.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Commissioner
Salem City Municipal Corporation, Salem – 636001
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Ammapet Zone, Salem City
Municipal Corporation,
Salem 636 003
3.R.M.Raju,
S/o. Mariappan, Aged about 71 Years, Door No. 97, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
4. P.Rajhu Ganesh,
S/o. Perumal, Aged about 58 Years, 16/5, Prakasam Nagar, Kannankurichi, Salem – 636 008.
5. G.Srinivasan Gopal,
S/o. Gopal, Aged about 52 Years, Krishnan Kovil Street, Salem – 636 001.
6. R.Ramu,
S/o. R.M.Raju, Aged about 45 Years, Sanniyasigundu,
Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
7. S.Sudarsan,
S/o. Sivaganesh, Aged about 29
Years, 325, Puthy Mariyamman Koil Street, Ponnamapettai, Salem – 636 003.
8. M.Manikandan,
S/o. Madesvaran, Aged about 50 Years, 11/A, Asath Road, VOC Market Backside, Salem – 636 001.
9. P.Karthikeyan,
S/o. Paramasivam, Aged about 48
Years, Arijar Anna Street, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
10. K.Sureshkimar,
S/o. Krishnan, Aged about 49 Years, Pillayar Kovil Street North, Salem – 636 001.
11. N.Mohan,
S/o. Natesan, Aged about 63
Years, Mariammal Kovil Street, Asthampatti, Salem – 636 007.
12. M.Senthil Kumar,
S/o. Marigounder, Aged about 53 Years, Arasamara Kovil Street, Pattaikovil, Salem – 636 001.
13. S.Kathiravan,
S/o. Chella Muthu, Aged about 53
Years, 665/1, Aruraikasam Street, Ammapettai, Salem – 636 001.
14. G.Thiyagarajan,
S/o. Govindhasamy, Aged about 62 Years, 70, Asath Street VOC Market Back Side, Salem – 636 001.
15. K.Sadasivam,
S/o. Kannan, Aged about 49 Years, 35, Sakthi Nagar, Ponnammapet, Salem – 636 003.
16. D.Manikandan,
S/O. Duraisamy, Aged about 45
Years, 78, A/127, Sanniyasi Kundu Main Road, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
17. G.Balasubramaniam,
S/o. Govindarajalu, Aged about 72
Years, H.No. 31/16,
Devendrapuram Street No.1, Salem – 636 001.
18. M.Soundharajan,
S/o. Mariappan, Aged about 67
Years, Door No. 21/50,
Arvakalamman Street, Kumarasami Patti, Salem – 636 007.
19. V.Madhu,
S/o. Vairamanipillai, Aged about 62
Years, 44/27/19, Kadampur Muniyappan Kovil Street, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
20.Premdas,
S/o. Joseph, Aged about 36 Years, 68/2, Kaaraikinaru Street, Chinna Kadai Street, Salem – 636 001.
21.Chakravarthy,
S/o. Raji, Aged about 43 Years, 6/204, Vaikaal Pattarai, Chinna Udayar Kadu, Salem – 636 003.
22. C.Loganathan,
S/o. Chandran, Aged about 51
Years, 77/2, Pechaye Amman Kovil Nagar, Kitchipalaym, Salem – 636 015.
23. S.Kanagu,
S/o. Sekar, Aged about 42 Years, No.128/2, Pakirikadu, Korathupatti Veeranam, Salem – 636 122.
24. P.Saravanan,
S/o. Paramasivam, Aged about 51 Years, Arignar Anna Street, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
25. S.Diwakar,
S/o. Sekar, Aged about 37 Years, 21/3 C, 4th Cross, Thillai Nagar, Salem – 636 001.
26. P.Mani,
S/o. Perumal, Aged about 68 Years, Korathupatti, Veeranam, Salem – 636 122.
27. C.Balamurugan,
S/o. Chandran, Aged about 45 Years, Chinnatirupathi, Salem – 636 103.
28.Malar,
W/o. Venkatachalam, Aged about
47 Years, 5/112, Kuttakadu, Metupattithasanur, Salem – 636 103.
29. C.Subramani,
S/o. Chinnasamy, Aged about 59
Years, 3/275-1, Sandhakaran Kadu, Periyaputhoor, Puthur, Agaramn, Salem – 636 010.
30. S.Sasikala,
D/o. Soundarajan, Aged about 40
Years, Angalamman Kovil Street,
Kumarasamipatti, Salem-636 007.
31. M.Subramani,
S/o. Manikam, Aged about 50 Years, Korathupatti, Veeranam, Salem – 636 122.
32. M.Nandhakumar,
S/o. Manilatchumanan, Aged about
41 Years, 4/368, Mariamman Kovil Street, Veerapandi, Salem – 636 308.
33. G.Sureshkumar,
S/o. Gopal, Aged about 49 Years, 180, Valmigi Street, Salem – 636 001.
34. S.Velayutham,
S/o. Srinivasan, Aged about 62
Years, 104/4, Ponnusamy East
Street -1, Ramanadhapuram, Kannakurichi Main Road, Salem – 636 008.
35. V.Ruckmangathan,
S/o. Venkatesan, Aged about 51
Years, P.No.12/P.No. 67, New ST-2, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
36. V.Kulandai Vel,
S/o. Vellakutti, Aged about 58 Years, 71, Vallalar Street,
Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636015.
Respondent(s)
W.A.No. 1751 of 2026:
1. A. Sakthivel
S/o. Arjunan, 138/72-B, Arignar Anna Street, Kichipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
2. C.Kuppusamy
S/o.Chinnappan, 380, Lake Road,
Thathampatty, Salem – 636 014
3.V. Shanmugam,
S/o.Venkatachalam, 416,
ChinnaUdayarKadu, Salem – 636 104
4. S.Jegannath
S/o.Selvamani, 215, Valmiki Street, Salem – 636 001
5. G.Rangananan
S/o. Govindan, 1/27-1 Shakthi
Nagar, Maniyanoor, Salem – 636 010
6.K. Mani
S/o. Kaliyappan, 472-3E,
Veeranam Main Road, Allikuttai,
Salem – 636003
7.S. Yuvaraj
S/o. Sekar, 8, Chairman Rajaratnam Street, Salem – 636 001.
8.T.Kesavan
S/o. Thangavel, No. 29/17, East Street, Manakadu, Salem – 636 007.
9.C. Chinnakannu,
S/o.Chinnasamy,
ChandanakaranKadu, Periyaputhur
Post, Agraharam, Salem- 636 010
10.S. Nanthagopal
S/o. Subramani 57A,Gomaipatti,Gowripuram,
Korimedu, Salem – 636 008
11.S. Joseph
S/o. Solomon 40/1, Muthavalli Mohammed Yakub Street, Salem – 636 001.
12.S. Saravanan
S/o. Shanmugam, 8-A, New
Street-1, Kichippalayam,
Salem – 636 001
Appellant(s)
Vs 1. The Commissioner
Salem City Municipal Corporation, Salem – 636 001
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Ammapet Zone, Salem City
Municipal Corporation,
Salem – 636 003
3.R.M. Raju
S/o. Mariappan, Aged about 71 Years, Door No. 97, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
4.P. Rajhu Ganesh
S/o. Perumal, Aged about 58 Years, 16/5, Prakasam Nagar, Kannankurichi, Salem – 636 008.
5.G. Srinivasan Gopal
S/o. Gopal, Aged about 52 Years, Krishnan Kovil Street, Salem – 636 001.
6. R.Ramu,
S/o. R.M.Raju, Aged about 45 Years, Sanniyasigundu, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
7. S.Sudarsan,
S/o. Sivaganesh, Aged about 29
Years, 325, Puthy Mariyamman Koil Street, Ponnamapettai, Salem – 636 003.
8. M.Manikandan,
S/o. Madesvaran, Aged about 50 Years, 11/A, Asath Road, VOC Market Backside, Salem – 636 001.
9. P.Karthikeyan,
S/o. Paramasivam, Aged about 48
Years, Arijar Anna Street, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
10. K.Sureshkimar,
S/o. Krishnan, Aged about 49 Years, Pillayar Kovil Street North, Salem – 636 001.
11. N.Mohan,
S/o. Natesan, Aged about 63
Years, Mariammal Kovil Street, Asthampatti, Salem – 636 007.
12. M.Senthil Kumar,
S/o. Marigounder, Aged about 53 Years, Arasamara Kovil Street, Pattaikovil, Salem – 636 001.
13. S.Kathiravan,
S/o. Chella Muthu, Aged about 53
Years, 665/1, Aruraikasam Street, Ammapettai, Salem – 636 001.
14. G.Thiyagarajan,
S/o. Govindhasamy, Aged about 62 Years, 70, Asath Street VOC Market Back Side, Salem – 636 001.
15. K.Sadasivam,
S/o. Kannan, Aged about 49 Years, 35, Sakthi Nagar, Ponnammapet, Salem – 636 003.
16. D.Manikandan,
S/O. Duraisamy, Aged about 45
Years, 78, A/127, Sanniyasi Kundu Main Road, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
17. G.Balasubramaniam,
S/o. Govindarajalu, Aged about 72
Years, H.No. 31/16,
Devendrapuram Street No.1, Salem – 636 001.
18. M.Soundharajan,
S/o. Mariappan, Aged about 67
Years, Door No. 21/50,
Arvakalamman Street, Kumarasami Patti, Salem – 636 007.
19. V.Madhu,
S/o. Vairamanipillai, Aged about 62
Years, 44/27/19, Kadampur Muniyappan Kovil Street, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
20.Premdas,
S/o. Joseph, Aged about 36 Years, 68/2, Kaaraikinaru Street, Chinna Kadai Street, Salem – 636 001.
21.Chakravarthy,
S/o. Raji, Aged about 43 Years, 6/204, Vaikaal Pattarai, Chinna Udayar Kadu, Salem – 636 003.
22. C.Loganathan,
S/o. Chandran, Aged about 51
Years, 77/2, Pechaye Amman Kovil Nagar, Kitchipalaym, Salem – 636 015.
23. S.Kanagu,
S/o. Sekar, Aged about 42 Years, No.128/2, Pakirikadu, Korathupatti Veeranam, Salem – 636 122.
24. P.Saravanan,
S/o. Paramasivam, Aged about 51 Years, Arignar Anna Street, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
25. S.Diwakar,
S/o. Sekar, Aged about 37 Years, 21/3 C, 4th Cross, Thillai Nagar, Salem – 636 001.
26. P.Mani,
S/o. Perumal, Aged about 68 Years, Korathupatti, Veeranam, Salem – 636 122.
27. C.Balamurugan,
S/o. Chandran, Aged about 45 Years, Chinnatirupathi, Salem – 636 103.
28.Malar,
W/o. Venkatachalam, Aged about
47 Years, 5/112, Kuttakadu, Metupattithasanur, Salem – 636 103.
29. C.Subramani,
S/o. Chinnasamy, Aged about 59
Years, 3/275-1, Sandhakaran Kadu, Periyaputhoor, Puthur, Agaramn, Salem – 636 010.
30. S.Sasikala,
D/o. Soundarajan, Aged about 40
Years, Angalamman Kovil Street, Kumarasamipatti, Salem – 636 007.
31. M.Subramani,
S/o. Manikam, Aged about 50 Years, Korathupatti, Veeranam, Salem – 636 122.
32. M.Nandhakumar,
S/o. Manilatchumanan, Aged about
41 Years, 4/368, Mariamman Kovil Street, Veerapandi, Salem – 636 308.
33. G.Sureshkumar,
S/o. Gopal, Aged about 49 Years, 180, Valmigi Street, Salem – 636 001.
34. S.Velayutham,
S/o. Srinivasan, Aged about 62
Years, 104/4, Ponnusamy East Street -1, Ramanadhapuram, Kannakurichi Main Road, Salem – 636 008.
35. V.Ruckmangathan,
S/o. Venkatesan, Aged about 51
Years, P.No.12/P.No. 67, New ST-2, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
36. V.Kulandai Vel,
S/o. Vellakutti, Aged about 58 Years, 71, Vallalar Street, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636015.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the common order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge W.P.Nos.26383 and 26380 of 2025.
For Appellant(s): Mr.G.Sankaran Senior Counsel for Mr. S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondent(s):Mrs.N.Devi Standing Counsel for R1 and R2
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)
These appeals arise from a conflict between a long-standing trading culture of daily market and the changes made by Municipal Corporation converting the market into a commercial complex with shops lent on monthly rental basis.
2. The matter centers on the V.O.C. Daily Market. For over eighty years, dating back to 1940, this market has served as a central trading venue for local flower growers and agriculturists. Here, seasonal flowers have traditionally been sold on an open, “first-come, first-served” basis.
3. The appellants, a large collective of flower vendors and agriculturists, have filed these appeals challenging the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.2.2026. The Single Judge dismissed their writ petitions, thereby upholding the Corporation’s Tender Notification dated 30.06.2025. This notification seeks to shift the market’s administration away from a daily toll collection model to a formal system of monthly commercial leases managed through a public auction.
4.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that converting a public daily market into a commercial shopping complex defeats its primary social purpose, in as much as the low-income agriculturists cannot afford permanent monthly rents.
4.2. It is further submitted that by framing the auction across a total timeline of 12 years, the notification violates the strict proviso of Section 78(3)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 [the Act], which caps local body leases at a maximum of three years at a time.
5.1. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the Corporation is legally obligated to protect public funds after losing nearly Rs.9.53 crores due to private contractor defaults under the old toll system.
5.2. It is further submitted that the Corporation possesses separate powers to manage its real estate under Section 78 of the Act, which operates independent of the daily licensing provisions under Section 108 of the Act.
6. The primary legal dispute is whether a municipal body,having established a public market, is confined solely to collecting user fees under Section 108 of the Act, or whether it retains the right to lease individual stalls under Section 78.
7. Under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, Section 108 describes a licensing power. On the other hand, Section 78 deals with property management. It gives the elected Council the right to lease out built real estate, such as covered stalls or shutter shops, to individual tenants, granting them exclusive possession for a specific period. These two provisions do not contradict each other, they serve different administrative purposes. A municipality is not forced to run its properties at a loss. If a licensing system fails to generate sustainable revenue, the Corporation has the full statutory right to secure its income by leasing out specific stalls through a transparent public auction.
8. The appellants have strongly criticized the financial terms of the tender, calling the deposit rates exorbitant. However, the courts maintain a disciplined boundary regarding the economic and policy choices of public bodies and will not step in unless the terms are completely arbitrary.
9. In an epoch-making judgment in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India , the Supreme Court delineated the scope of judicial review in tender/contract matters as under:
“94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasiadministrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.”
[emphasis supplied]
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India)
Ltd. v. State of Karnataka , held thus:
“23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:
(a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities;
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers,
interference by courts is not warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and (e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.
24. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached”?
and
(ii) Whether the public interest is affected?
If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226.”
[emphasis supplied]
11. In Directorate of Education and others v. Educomp
Datamatics Ltd and others , the Supreme Court held that the Government must have a freehand in stipulating the terms of the tender and that it must have reasonable play in the joints as a concomitant necessary for an administrative body in administrative sphere. The winged words of the Apex Court in this regard are reproduced herein under:
“12. It has clearly been held in these decisions that the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract. That the Government must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The courts would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. The courts can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.”
[emphasis supplied]
12. The law enunciated in the aforesaid decisions adumbrates that the scope of judicial review in tender process is extremely limited. The tender floating authority is the best judge of its requirements and unless arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the tendering authority is alleged, the court’s interference should be minimal.
13. The decision of the Salem Corporation to move to an open public auction is a logical step to stop revenue losses, maintain its infrastructure and eliminate unreliable middlemen. Public auctions are the most transparent way to manage public assets, ensuring the Corporation receives fair market value while offering all citizens an equal opportunity to participate.
14. The learned Single Judge analyzed the statutory provisions thoroughly and arrived at the correct conclusions. We find no legal error or administrative unfairness in the original order.
15. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The common
order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications stand closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
15.07.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi
To:
1. The Commissioner
Salem City Municipal Corporation, Salem – 636001
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Ammapet Zone, Salem City
Municipal Corporation,
Salem 636 003
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(sasi)
WA Nos.1852 and 1751 of 2026

15.07.2026