Residual monetary claims following lease termination must be pursued through separate legal proceedings.

The petitioner filed two writ petitions concerning the Vandiyur Park, K.K. Nagar, Madurai. In WP(MD) No. 16106 of 2026, he sought certiorari to quash the Madurai Municipal Corporation Commissioner’s proceedings dated 5 March 2026. In WP(MD) No. 10978 of 2026, he sought directions to close food stalls in the park, prevent visitors from bringing plastic materials, restrain the installation of amusement structures such as a giant wheel, and prohibit the collection of entry fees.

The petitions challenged the official respondents’ decision to lease the park area to Ayubkhan, the successful bidder, for installing amusement structures and collecting related charges.

During the proceedings, the Corporation terminated the agreement with Ayubkhan. The Court had earlier directed repayment of the amounts deposited by him; ₹1,00,00,000 had already been repaid, and the balance of ₹2,02,47,839 was subsequently repaid through a cheque dated 21 September 2026.

Ayubkhan contended that GST amounts and certain maintenance charges remained unpaid and sought liberty to pursue those claims separately.

1. Whether the proposed leasing and installation of amusement structures, including a giant wheel, inside Vandiyur Park could be sustained in view of the concerns raised in the writ petitions.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to directions for closure of food stalls, prevention of plastic materials, restraint against collection of entry fees, and other consequential measures concerning the maintenance and use of the park.

3. Whether the third respondent’s residual claims relating to GST and maintenance charges could be adjudicated in the writ proceedings.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to the impugned municipal proceedings and the petitioner’s claims for mandamus.

The governing principles were that judicial review may examine administrative decisions concerning public property and public facilities, but relief must be moulded according to the circumstances existing at the time of final disposal; disputed or residual monetary claims, such as GST and maintenance charges, may appropriately be pursued in separate proceedings in accordance with law.

The Court also treated the termination of the amusement-structure agreement and repayment of the bidder’s deposited amounts as material developments affecting the continuing necessity of adjudicating the original challenge.

The Court noted that both petitions substantially concerned the proposed leasing of space in Vandiyur Park for amusement structures and the associated collection of entry fees.

It expressly appreciated the Commissioner’s decision to terminate the agreement with Ayubkhan, thereby addressing the principal concern regarding the installation of the giant wheel and similar structures.

Since the substantial deposit made by Ayubkhan had been repaid—including the balance of ₹2,02,47,839 by cheque dated 21 September 2026—the immediate controversy concerning the lease was materially resolved.

The Court declined to determine the remaining GST and maintenance-charge claims in the writ proceedings, leaving them to be raised separately in accordance with law.

It also consciously refrained from examining the issue of entry fees at that stage, while preserving the petitioner’s liberty to approach the Court again if further measures became necessary for proper maintenance of the park.

It accepted the termination of the agreement relating to the proposed amusement structures and recorded repayment of the amounts deposited by the third respondent. Any remaining claims concerning GST or maintenance charges were left open for determination in separate proceedings. The Court specifically did not decide the legality of collecting entry fees and granted the petitioner liberty to seek further judicial directions if required for maintaining the park properly.