High Court Kerala High Court

Madana Mohanan Nair vs The District Collector on 23 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Madana Mohanan Nair vs The District Collector on 23 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32138 of 2008(A)


1. MADANA MOHANAN NAIR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REVENEU DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE PRESIDENT, ETTUMANOOR GRAMA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :23/01/2009

 O R D E R
                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                         ==============
                    W.P.(C) NO. 32138 OF 2008 (A)
                    ====================

               Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009

                              J U D G M E N T

Exts.P2 and P3 are under challenge.

2. Petitioner had bid an auction for an Anjili tree which was held

on 20/10/2008. He was the highest bidder and he deposited Rs.40,250/-

being the full bid value.

3. However,the District Collector by Ext.P2 ordered to re auction

the timber and Ext.P3 re auction notice was issued. It was challenging

Exts. P2 and P3, the petitioner approached this Court.

4. Following the orders that were passed, a second auction was

held and the value fetched was only Rs.70,500/-. Again the authorities

decided to conduct a third auction and pursuant to the orders that were

obtained from this Court, in the 3rd auction that was held on 15/1/2009,

the highest bid received is of Rs.1,66,799/-.

5. Obviously the value now fetched is far in excess of the earlier

bids that were received and therefore in pubic interest, the respondents

should be permitted to accept the highest bid that is now available.

WPC 32138/08
:2 :

6. Therefore, the following directions are issued in this writ

petition.

(1) The respondents will be free to accept the highest bid that is

received for Rs.1,66,799 and the bidder shall be permitted to remove the

timber subject to the usual terms.

(2) The amount deposited by the petitioner along with the cutting

expenses of Rs.13,600/- quantified and indicated in the report dated

17/1/2009 submitted by the 2nd respondent shall be reimbursed to him.

3. Petitioner has a claim that he has incurred additional

expenditure. If he has such a claim, it is up to him to pursue the matter

before the appropriate authorities.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp