1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.915 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Muthuraj : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Branch Manager, The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., 4/35, N.P.S.Complex (Near New Bus Stand), Thoothukudi-628 002. 2.The Regional Manager, TIIC Limited, 5C/5B, 2nd Floor, Sakunthala Shopping Complex, Vannarpet, Tirunelveli-3. : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the auction notification dated 02.01.2011 issued by the first respondent more particularly in respect of the primary property (land and Building) situated at Survey Nos.90/3, 90/10 and 90/12 at Thiruppanchettikulam Village, near Sawyerpuram, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to receive the balance amount of Rs.16,20,000/- with interest if any to hand over the said property without any encumbrance immediately after completing the said formalities. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha ORDER The petitioner challenges the auction notification dated 02.01.2011 issued by the first respondent proposing to sell the property situated at Survey Nos.90/3, 90/10 and 90/12 in the district of Tuticorin and seeks to quash the same. 2. The first respondent originally conducted an auction to sell the property after invoking Section 29 of the State Financial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Corporations Act, 1951. The petitioner had offered Rs.1,98,500/- and after negotiation, he has agreed to take the property for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-. Accordingly, order of confirmation was issued to the petitioner on 01.02.2010. In the meantime, the petitioner received a private notice dated 01.03.2010 intimating him about the challenge made to the auction in W.P.(MD)No.1420 of 2010. However, the respondents directed the petitioner to pay the balance consideration. Accordingly, he issued a cheque for the balance amount on 29.03.2010. However, the cheque was returned on account of insufficient funds. It was once again returned on 13.05.2010. 3. The first respondent, as per communication dated 19.08.2010, informed the petitioner that the earnest money deposit made by him has been forfeited. Immediately, the petitioner approached the first respondent and he was directed to pay the amount with interest at 21%. Accordingly, he has arranged the funds. In the meantime, the first respondent issued a notification on 02.01.2011 fixing fresh auction on 25.01.2011. Feeling aggrieved by the said notification, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The offer made by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- was originally accepted by the first respondent and an order of confirmation was issued to him on 01.02.2010. The petitioner has paid only a sum of Rs.1,19,850/- and he was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs.16,20,000/-. The cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured originally on 12.04.2010. It was once again represented by the first respondent. However, the cheque was dishonoured again for want of sufficient funds. It was only in such circumstances, the first respondent has forfeited the earnest money deposit. Though the petitioner has stated that he has arranged a sum of Rs.19,60,200/-, there is nothing on record to show that he was ready with the said amount. Therefore, the first respondent was fully justified in taking further steps for re-auction. 6. The first respondent has given sufficient indulgence to the petitioner and in spite of giving opportunities, he has not deposited the amount. The cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured on two occasions. Therefore, the first respondent was convinced that the petitioner was not having the required amount. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was prepared to deposit Rs.19,60,200/- and approached the first respondent on 20.01.2011 with the said amount. In case the petitioner was having the demand draft for a sum of Rs.19,60,200/-, nothing prevented him from producing the photocopies of the demand draft. The very fact that no such document was produced would show that the petitioner was projecting a case that he was prepared to honour the commitments. However, the fact remains that he was not ready and willing to deposit the amount. The first respondent was dealing with the property of a sick unit. Therefore, they cannot wait indefinitely https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 under the guise of arranging funds by the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the impugned auction notification. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(W) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Branch Manager, The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., 4/35, N.P.S.Complex (Near New Bus Stand), Thoothukudi-628 002. 2.The Regional Manager, TIIC Limited, 5C/5B, 2nd Floor, Sakunthala Shopping Complex, Vannarpet, Tirunelveli-3. Order made in W.P.(MD)No.915 of 2011 Dated:- 24.01.2011 SML SMA/21.02.2011/3C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/