Elipe Dharma Rao, J. - (1.) THIS Review Petition has been filed by the review petitioner/writ petitioner, to review the order dated 19.4.2007, passed by this Court in W.P.No:6329 of 2003.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the petitioner being one of the shop owner, if the earlier lease holder was collecting more tax than the one prescribed by the Municipality, he should have made a complaint to take action against the lease holder instead of that, for no reason, he approached this Court and stalled the finalization of the tender to lease out the right to collect the toll fees from the public for parking the vehicles in front of the Na.Pa.Sarathy Maligai at Officers Line in Vellore, by virtue of which, there is a loss of revenue of the Municipality from 2.3.2003 to this day therefore, as the petitioner has misused the public interest litigation and filed this writ petition and got an interim order detriment to the interest of the Municipality causing loss of revenue, we consider it proper dismissing the writ petition with a direction to collect the entire revenue loss caused to the Municipality by virtue of filing of this writ petition and obtaining interim injunction by the petitioner for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 with interest. When the Review Petition came up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Municipality/Respondents that, in pursuance of the order of this court passed in the Writ Petition, they have calculated the revenue loss and issued a demand notice dated 13.8.2007 demanding the amount of Rs.19,28,876/=. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that the Auction period was only for 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 and even at the time of disposal of the writ petition on 19.4.2007, the period had gone by efflux of time and even considering that interim stay was granted by this Court on 26.2.2003, much prior to the commencement of the auction period, though notice was served on the Municipality, they did not prefer to file any counter, nor filed a petition to vacate the interim order and therefore, the petitioner may not be mulcted with the total loss of revenue.
(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the consequences at the time of filing of the writ petition as he is a layman and this court may show some concession or indulgence towards him. LEARNED Senior Counsel also now brought to the notice of this Court that the very land for which auction proceedings was stayed by this court belong to the Highways Department and also produced a copy of the letter dated 25.9.2007, sent by the Highways Department addressed to the Commissioner of Vellore Municipality requesting them to stop future public auction in respect of the said land as the same would be required by them for expansion of road. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that though the total revenue loss is claimed at Rs.19,28,876/=, since the petitioner is only a grocery shop owner, and taking into consideration the fact that the Municipality had not taken any steps to get the interim order vacated till final disposal of the writ petition, we consider it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/= (rupees One Lakh), to the Municipality, which shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.;