1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)NO.7936 of 2011 & M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011 K.Pandian ... Petitioner -Vs- 1.The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Thirupathur, Sivagangai District. 4.Rama Sahadevan 5.K.Velayutham ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the tender notification of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/8488/2010 dated 20.05.2011 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to conduct fresh auction. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishandoss Govt.Advocate for R1 to R3. : Mr.S.Sathish Kumar for R4 : Mr.R.Govindaraj for R5 O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition challenging the auction notification. 2. Heard Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Sathish Kumar, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent and Mr.R.Govindaraj, learned Counsel for the fifth respondent and Mr.K.P.Krishandoss, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. The second respondent namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, issued a notification in the District Gazette, Sivagangai District dated 09.06.2011, for the auction of trees standing in the tanks in Thiruppathur Taluk. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent who is a very powerful person, physically prevented the petitioner from reaching the venue of the auction. Since the petitioner gave a police complaint, the fourth respondent attacked the petitioner and prevented him from participating in the auction and cleverly took the right in the auction in the name of the fifth respondent, so as to avoid any allegations in future. The highest bid floated by the fifth respondent was Rs.30,05,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs and Five Thousand only) and the same was accepted by the respondents 1 to 3. Thereafter, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the auction. 5.In paragraph '10' of the affidavit in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he is prepared to offer more than Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) if fresh auction is conducted. According to the petitioner, he was effectively prevented from participating in the auction and therefore there was no fair auction. 6.The Respondents 2 and 3 have filed the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, they have stated that the District Collector approved the sale of trees in Survey No.21/1 in Temma Kanmai in Thempattu Group, Thiruppathur Taluk. The minimum bid amount was fixed at Rs.6,80,900/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Thousand Nine Hundred only) and security deposit for participating in the auction was fixed at Rs.1,70,255/-(Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Five only). The auction notification was to be published in the District Gazette and in two local daily newspapers on consecutive days. Accordingly, the Gazette publication was made on 09.06.2011 and the newspaper publications were made on 27.06.2011. The auction sale was fixed on 30.06.2011. In the auction, 16 persons participated. The petitioner also participated in the auction after paying the security deposit. But, the fifth respondent became the highest bidder and offered Rs.30,05,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs and Five Thousand only). The highest bid amount was Rs.30,05,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs and Five Thousand only) and the fifth respondent paid Rs.15,55,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Fifty Five Thousand only) on 30.06.2011 and paid the balance amount on 05.07.2011. 7.Insofar as the challenge made by the petitioner that he is prepared to offer more, it is seen from the condition No.3 of the notification that there is a time limit of 30 days for the District Collector to confirm the auction. Under condition No.4 of the auction conditions, any person who is prepared to offer more amount than the highest bidder, is entitled to make an application within thirty days of the auction, but, to make such a request, there are certain conditions prescribed. Clause No.11 reads as follows: "11. Ml;Brgid bra;J kD bfhLg;gth;fs; vt;tst[ bjhiff;F Vyk; vLf;f tpUk;g[fpwhh;fBsh mj;bjhifia Vy mYtyh; bgahpy; tiuBthiyahf nizj;J mDg;g Btz;Lk;. tiuBthiy nd;wp bgwg;gLk; kDf;fs; epuhfhpf;fg;gLk; vdt[k; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ." 8.Though the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition on 15.07.2011, within 15 days of the conduct of the auction and though he has also made an offer to pay Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only), the petitioner has not adhered to condition No.11. Either the petitioner should have sent a Demand Draft for Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only) as per condition No.11 within 30 days or the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 petitioner should have at least enclosed a Demand Draft to the writ petition. A period of more than five months has passed from the date of auction. Even today, the learned Counsel for the petitioner requested a time of one month to deposit the amount of Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only) on the ground that the tank is submerged in water and that for another three months, the trees cannot be cut and removed. 9.But, it is not open to the petitioner to dilute the conditions prescribed in the tender notification. If he wants the auction to be set aside, he must comply with the conditions prescribed in the auction notification. His grievance is against the respondents 3 and 4. But, on account of that, the respondents 1 to 3 cannot be made to suffer. The auction conditions are not under challenge. Therefore, a person who failed to comply with the auction conditions and who wants one month time even today, cannot be granted the relief as prayed for. Therefore, I could see no reason to allow this writ petition. 10.Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.S) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar TO 1.The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Thirupathur, Sivagangai District. + 1 cc to Mr.Jawahar Ravindran, Advocate, SR No.44537 W.P.(MD)NO.7936 of 2011 19.12.2011 gsr RJ/3.1.12 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/