IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 29-10-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No. 1969 of 2003 T.Annamalai .. Petitioner Versus 1.The District Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, No.6, Chairman Shanmugam St., Villupuram and District. 2.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 3.The Conservator of Forest Circle, Dharmapuri Circle, 30, Appavoo Nagar 3rd Cross Street, Dharmapuri & District. 4.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Buildings, 8th Floor, Saidapet, Chennai-15. 5. P.Vijayakumar 6. K.N.Jayaraman 7. N.Muthu Udayar .. Respondents Prayer : This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records Na.Ka.No.1474 of 2002, dated 8.11.2002 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent herein to conduct fresh public auction. For Petitioner : Mr C.S.Karnan For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Purusothaman, Govt. Advocate(F)for R1 to R4 : Mr.S.Saravanakumar- for R5 to R7 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records, dated 8.11.2002, made in Na.Ka.No.1474 of 2002 and quash the same and to direct the first respondent, to conduct fresh public auction, with regard to the cutting of trees in Thirukkoilur range. 2. The respondents had given a publication in the Villupuram District Government Gazettee, dated 16.10.2002. However, the first respondent had conducted the public auction, on 22.11.2002, at Kallakurichi, instead of at the originally announced place at Dharmapuri. In the said public auction, 80 Registered Forest Contractors had participated, including the petitioner. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that, even though higher bids were made by various persons, including the petitioner, the auction was confirmed in favour of the respondents 5, 6 and 7. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents 5, 6 and 7, had submitted that the auction, which was conducted on 22.11.2002, had been confirmed in favour of the respondents 5, 6 and 7, on 22.11.2002 itself and the trees had been cut and they had been taken away by the respondents 5, 6 and 7, thereafter. Therefore, nothing survives in the present Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not refuted the statements made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5, 6 and 7. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 had also confirmed the statements made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5, 6 and 7. 6. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. aes https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The District Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, No.6, Chairman Shanmugam St., Villupuram and District. 2.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 3.The Conservator of Forest Circle, Dharmapuri Circle, 30, Appavoo Nagar 3rd Cross Street, Dharmapuri & District. 4.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Buildings, 8th Floor, Saidapet, Chennai-15. 1 cc to Special Government Pleader(Forest) Sr.No.59988 1 cc to Mr.S.Saravanakumar, Advocate, Sr.No.59801 Writ Petition No.1969 of 2003 MSM(CO) EM/17.11. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/