THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22737 of 2010 Date:03.08.2011 Between: Devanaboina Chinna Mastanaiah And three others. ..... Petitioners AND Superintendent of Engineer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District And five others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Pramod For Sri K.S.Gopala Krishnan Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : AGP for Irrigation and CAD Counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6: Sri P.Gangarami Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the holding of auction of country wood trees on 15.07.2010 in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 on the bunds of two tanks (old and new) of Peddannaluru as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.5 and 6. The petitioners are residents of Peddannaluru, Kammavaripalem Post, Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. They have felt aggrieved by the auction of what is termed as ‘country wood trees’ by the petitioners and as ‘Juliflora trees’ by the respondents. Irrespective of the terminology of the trees, the only question that requires to be considered in this writ petition is whether the auction was held secretively without wide publication as alleged by the petitioners. In the counter-affidavit filed by both the official and private respondents, it is specifically pleaded that wide publicity was made before the auction was conducted. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3- Assistant Engineer, Irrigation and CAD Department, Nellore North Division, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District, it is inter alia stated that auction was initially proposed on 07.07.2010 and a notice to that effect was issued on 25.06.2010 with wide publicity and also by beat of tom tom in Peddannaluru Village. It is further averred that on the request of the villagers, the auction was postponed to 15.07.2010 and a notice to that effect was issued on 06.07.2010 by way of tom tom and also through publication in the district edition of Eenadu, Telugu daily newspaper published on 08.07.2010. In support of this averment, a copy of the notice published in district edition of Eenadu, Telugu daily newspaper, dated 08.07.2010, has been furnished at the hearing by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. As noted above, the only ground on which the validity of auction is questioned is that the official respondents failed to give publicity disabling the persons like the petitioners from participating in the auction. It is their further contention that if an auction is held, it will fetch a far higher amount. During the course of one of the hearings, this Court adjourned the case to enable the petitioners to file an affidavit as to the amount which they are prepared to offer. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed an affidavit stating that they are prepared to offer Rs.5 lakhs for the trees standing on the bunds of both the tanks. In the public auction held on 15.07.2010, the private respondents have offered Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,70,000/- respectively for the two tanks. Had the petitioners been really interested, nothing prevented them from participating in the auction. Since their plea that proper publicity of the auction was not given is belied by the specific averment contained in the counter-affidavit of the official respondent as noted above, and the copy of the paper publication produced before the Court in support of this stand, this Court is of the opinion that the offer of Rs.5 lakhs made by the petitioners is not bona fide and is a pure after thought. This Court is not prepared to encourage such unfair competition by the persons who failed to participate in the auction and make a higher offer after completion of auction process. If such offers are accepted, it will lead to a situation of uncertainties and encourage speculative litigation. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed as without any merit. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29000 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed and W.V.M.P.Nos.5573 and 6104 of 2010 filed by the respondents are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd August, 2011 DR