1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.P. (MD) No.3943 of 2011 and M.P. (MD) Nos.1& 2 of 2011 V. Gunasekaran Petitioner vs. 1 The Recovery Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Kalyani Towers, Madurai 2 The Divisional Manager Union Bank of India 19/20, North Veli Street Madurai – 1 3 The Manager Union Bank of India 6/3, Eswaran Kovil Street Emaneswaram, Paramakudi 4 Harry Prasad Manager Union Bank of India 6/3, Eswaran Kovil Street Eamneswaram, Paramakudi Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned tender cum auction notification dated 14.02.2011 which was published in Tamil Daily Dhina Malar dated 18.02.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct a fresh tender cum auction. For petitioner Mr. K. Mahendran For R1 No appearance For RR 2- 4 Mr. T. Govindasamy ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ petition is filed challenging the auction notice dated 14.02.2011 and also seeking a direction to the first respondent to conduct a fresh tender cum auction. 2. By order dated 01.04.2011, this Court has directed the petitioner to take a demand draft for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs and on the next hearing, i.e. on 07.04.2011, the petitioner was directed to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 deposit the balance amount of Rs.41 lakhs. However, it is the stand of the learned counsel for the respondent bank that this direction has not been complied with by the respondent bank. 3. But, the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the upset price fixed was very low. However, it is the stand of the learned counsel for the respondent bank that two times, auction notice was issued and since there was no offer, after complying with all the formalities, the third notice was issued. 4. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was willing to purchase the said property to a value of Rs.61 lakhs. Only in view of this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the above said two interim orders were passed directing the petitioner to deposit the said amount to find out his bona fides. But, admittedly, the same has not been complied with by the petitioner. 5. In view of the above and also having been satisfied with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent bank, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out by the petitioner and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/ Deputy Registrar (LA ) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1 The Recovery Officer,Debts Recovery Tribunal Kalyani Towers, Madurai 2 The Divisional Manager Union Bank of India 19/20, North Veli Street,Madurai – 1 3 The Manager Union Bank of India 6/3, Eswaran Kovil Street Emaneswaram, Paramakudi 4. Harry Prasad Manager Union Bank of India 6/3, Eswaran Kovil Street Eamneswaram, Paramakudi +1cc to Mr.K.Mahendran, Advocate, Sr.No.14129 W.P. (MD) No.3943 of 2011 cad/SMA/16.5.2011/6C/2P 19.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/