M.Ravichandran vs The Managing Director on 23 February, 2005

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           

DATED: 23/02/2005  

CORAM   

THE HON'BLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE             
AND  
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN          

W.A. No. 395 of 2005 

M.Ravichandran                                     ...  Appellant

-Vs-

1. The Managing Director,
   Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
   Nandanam, Chennai-35. 

2. S.Murugan 

3. T.R.Thirumalai                                ...   Respondents


        Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this
Court dated 7.12.2004 in W.P.  No.510 of 2002.

!For Appellant ::  Mr.S.Balasubramanian

^For Respondents ::  Mr.D.Veerasekaran 

:JUDGMENT   

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D.MURUGESAN, J.)

This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment
of the learned single Judge dated 7.12.2004. Heard the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the records.

2. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of
the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same. The
petitioner/appellant submitted that he was the highest bidder in an auction,
but after that auction the authorities have decided to hold a fresh auction.

3. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that even
the highest bidder has no absolute indefeasible right to get the contract.
There may be various reasons why the authorities may not accept the bid of the
highest bidder, especially when the highest bid was inadequate or for some
other good reason vide S.Selvarani v. The Commissioner, Karaikudi
Municipality and another (2005 Writ L.R. 30).

4. It would have been a different matter, if the authorities,
after deciding not to give a contract to the highest bidder, had given it to
some one else by private negotiation. However, that is not the case here.
Here, after rejecting the highest bid of the petitioner the authorities
decided to hold a fresh auction. There is nothing illegal in this. The
petitioner can also participate in the fresh auction.

5. Thus, there is no force in this appeal and it is
dismissed. Consequently WAMP No.701 of 2005 is also dismissed.

Index: Yes.

Internet: Yes.

ns.

To

The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai-35.