BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29/03/2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI Writ Petition No.1258 of 2006 M.Subramanian ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, 212, Gandhiji Comml.Complex, Gandhiji Road, Thanjavur-1. 2.The Commissioner(in-Charge) Manapparai Municipality, Manapparai. 3.A.Sivakumar ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Second respondent herein relating to the auction notification dated 01.02.2006 in Na.Ka.No.4643/2004/A.2 in respect of Serial No.2 of the notification, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent herein to grant the right to collect fee from buses entering into and passing through Manapparai Bus Stand, to the petitioner, pursuant to the auction conducted on 24.01.2006. !For Petitioner .... Mr.AL.Ganthimathi ^For Respondent .... Mr.P.Srinivas for No.2 Mr.Govindarajan For Respondent .... Mr.Devaraj No.3 :ORDER
Heard Mr.AL.Ganthimathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, Mr.Devaraj
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. By consent of the all the
counsel, this petition itself taken up for final disposal.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging the auction notification dated
01.02.2006 in Na.Ka.No.4643/2004/A.2 in respect of Serial No.2 namely collection
of fees from the buses which entered into the bus stand at Manapparai.
3. Originally, when the second respondent has called for the auction, the
petitioner was the highest bidder. However, it was not confirmed.
Subsequently, on the second occasion, when the auction was called for, the bid
amount of the petitioner was at Rs.5,88,100/- and he was the highest bidder that
was also not confirmed, and ultimately, by the impugned notification, for the
third time, the second respondent has called for auction cum tender process.
This has been done on the basis that the third respondent has asked for re-
auction, by complying with the Rule 37 of the tender conditions issued by the
second respondent.
4. The grievances of the petitioner is that when on the first and second
occasions, the petitioner was the highest bidder and when the petitioner was
available on the spot at 3.00p.m, which was the cut off time, instead of
approving the tender in favour of the petitioner, after the time stipulated,
namely 3.40p.m., the third respondent’s request was entertained.
5. The last date for filing of tender application was 14.02.2006 and the
opening of tender was scheduled on 15.02.2006 at 11.30 a.m. This Court, while
admitting the writ petition, by an order dated 13.02.2006, has granted interim
stay in respect of the impugned notification and by virtue of the same, the
auction has not been conducted. Now, the counter affidavit has been filed by
the second respondent/Municipality stating that the third respondent has
complied with the requirement, as per the Rule 37 and therefore, the
Municipality has proceeded with re-auction and by virtue of the order of Stay,
the re-auction could not be conducted.
6. Considering the entire situation of the case and that the petitioner
has, in fact, participated on two occasions and the third respondent has called
for re-auction complying with the Rule 37, this Court is of the view that the
second respondent/Municipality must be permitted to proceed with the re-
auction. It is made clear that the petitioner and the third respondent or any
other public, who are interested can participate. There will be a direction to
the second respondent to conduct re-auction by issuing fresh notification. As
per the terms and conditions of auction issued by the second respondent, till
the re-auction process is completed, the participants, namely
the petitioner as well as the third respondent shall be retained and based on
the upset price fixed by the second respondent, the auction will start.
Therefore, the second respondent is directed to issue fresh notification and
permit the petitioner and third respondent to participate in the re-auction
along with any other persons and such process shall be completed at the
earliest, as expeditiously as possible.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There is
no order as to costs.
gcg
To
1.The Regional Director of
Municipal Administration,
212, Gandhiji Comml.Complex,
Gandhiji Road, Thanjavur-1.
2.The Commissioner(in-Charge)
Manapparai Municipality,
Manapparai.