1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A(MD)No.638 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011 P.Shankar ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, 33, South Street, I.O.B. Building, Second Floor, Thanjavur. 2.The Regional Manager, The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., 33, K.R.T. Building, Promenade Road, Contonment, Trichy. 3.The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., No.692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 35. ... Respondents/Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 28.02.2011 passed by MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN, in W.P.(MD)No.1177 of 2011 on the file of this Court, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent, to confirm the public auction sale conducted on 09.12.2010 by the first respondent in respect of item No.3 mentioned in the publication dated 24.11.2010 in Dhinathanthi in advertisement Tha.Tho.Mu.Ka.Trichy No.08/2010-2011 in favour of the petitioner as the is higher bidder in the Public auction. For Appellant : Mr.Veera Kathiravan For Respondents : Mr.M.Suresh for Aiyar and Dolia JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) The appellant being the successful bidder has filed a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to confirm the bit submitted by him during the public auction held on 09.12.2010. 2. Admittedly, the bid of the appellant was the highest and he has been declared as a successful bidder. However, the bid in favour of the appellant has not been confirmed, since a third party has offered higher amount and made a request for re-auction. Therefore, considering the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 fact, the respondents have refused to confirm the bid in favour of the petitioner. In the absence of any confirmation, to the writ petition there is no right vested to him, seeking a direction to confirm the bid in his favour. Admittedly, there is no concluding contract between the appellant and the respondent, therefore, warrants any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 3. Mr.V.Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appellant is belonging to downtrodden community and attempts are being made to prevent him to become a successful bidder. The learned counsel further stated that the auction was postponed on earlier occasions, in view of the objections made after the auction was over by offering higher amount. It is further submitted that re-auction was held yesterday and the appellant could not participate in it, in view of the pendency of the writ appeal. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for permission to renew his bid. 4. The request of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be considered, since the time granted for participating in the auction is over. However, it is very well open to the appellant to make an offer to the respondents after declaration of the highest bid and seek re-auction if he offers a higher amount. 5. With the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. (MD) No.2 of 2011 is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, 33, South Street, I.O.B. Building, Second Floor, Thanjavur. 2.The Regional Manager, The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., 33, K.R.T. Building, Promenade Road, Contonment, Trichy. 3.The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., No.692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 35. +1CC TO MR.VEERAKATHIRAN, ADVOCATE SR.23451 +1CC TO MR.AIYAR & DOLIA, ADVOCATE SR.23106 sj : SR : 25.07.2011 : 2p/6c W.A(MD)No.638 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011 15.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/