BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11/11/2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition (MD) No.13321 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 P.Kottaisamy .. Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai. .. Respondent Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to conduct re-auction in respect of demolition of the Central Market buildings near to the Meenakshiamman Temple, Madurai by considering the petitioner's representation dated 28.10.2010. !For petitioner ... M/s.K.K.Senthil ^For respondent ... Mr.M.Ravishankar :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased
to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to conduct a re-auction,
in respect of the demolition of the Central Market buildings, situated near the
Shree Meenakshiamman Temple, Madurai, by considering the petitioner’s
representation, dated 28.10.2010.
2. Heard Mr.K.K.Senthil, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, as well as Mr.M.Ravishankar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent.
3. The petitioner has stated that the shops in the old Central Market had
been shifted to the newly constructed market at Mattuthavani, Madurai. A multi-
level shopping complex is proposed to be constructed at the said place.
Therefore, an auction notification, dated 02.10.2010, had been issued by the
respondent, in the Tamil daily newspaper ‘Maalai Malar’, for the demolition of
the buildings at the old Central Market. The value of the wood had been fixed
at Rs.4,92,000/- and for the old Mangalore tiles the value had been fixed at
Rs.5,000/-.
4. The petitioner has further stated that the buildings in the old
Central Market had been constructed in the year, 1694 A.D., by the then ruler
Rani Mangammal. Without considering the actual value of the wood and the
Mangalore tiles, used in the construction of the buildings, the respondent
Corporation had fixed their value at Rs.4,92,000/-, and Rs.5,000/-,
respectively, which is far below the actual value of the materials in question.
In such circumstances, the petitioner had made a representation to the
respondent, on 28.10.2010, and had offered to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-,
to be fixed as the upset price for the materials. However, the respondent had
not considered the representation made by the petitioner. In such
circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before
this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is that the respondent had fixed the value of the wood and the old
Mangalore tiles, without properly analysing the actual value of the materials
concerned. Hence, the respondent Corporation would lose a huge amount of money
by confirming the auction in favour of the highest bidder, who had quoted
Rs.5,25,000/-. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to set aside
the auction conducted by the respondent, on 18.10.2010, and to direct the
respondent to conduct a re-auction, accepting the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-,
offered by the petitioner, as the value of the wood and the old Mangalore tiles.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had
submitted that even though the auction notification had been published in the
Tamil daily newspaper ‘Maalai Malar’, on 02.10.2010, the petitioner had not
opted to participate in the auction, held on 18.10.2010. The auction had been
confirmed in the name of one S.Ponmuthu, who was the highest bidder, who had
made his bid for a sum of Rs.5,25,000/-. The confirmation order had also been
issued in his favour, on 20.10.2010. In such circumstances, it is not open to
the petitioner to claim that the respondent should conduct a re-auction, as
prayed for by him.
7. It is also noted that the petitioner has not impleaded the highest
bidder in whose name the auction had been confirmed, even though he is a
necessary party to the present writ petition.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason, to
grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ
petition. Even though the auction notification had been published in the Tamil
daily newspaper ‘Maalai Malar’, on 02.10.2010, the petitioner had not
participated in the said auction, which had been held, on 18.10.2010.
Thereafter, the confirmation order had also been issued to the highest bidder,
on 20.10.2010. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner to
substantiate his claim that the wood, as well as the old Mangalore tiles, had
not been properly valued. Even though he had offered a higher amount and had
prayed for a direction to the respondent to conduct a re-auction, this Court
does not find it appropriate to accept the offer made by the petitioner, at
this belated stage. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it
is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
srm
To
The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai.