1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.(MD)No.4803 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 K.Jeevanandham ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Ramanathapuram. 3.The President, Madanthai Village Panchayat, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 4.S.Devi, President, Madanthai Village Panchayat, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 5.Lakshmanan, M.Nedungulam, Paramakudi Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District. 6.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Ramanathapuram. 7.The Forest Ranger, Social Forestry Circle, Paramakudi. ... Respondents PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 15.04.2011 in Na.Ka.No.A1/2/2011 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan,Spl.G.P. For R1, 2, 6 and 7 Mr.D.Sasikumar For R3 and 4 Mr.D.Senthil for R5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.) This petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner, challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 15.04.2011, by which, the respondent No.5 has been given permission to cut the trees for an extent of 14.70 hectares situated in M.Nedungulam Kanmai, Paramakudi Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The respondent No.6 herein by the proceedings dated 16.03.2011 has permitted the 3rd respondent to cut the trees for an extent of 14.70 hectares situated in Paramakudi Forest Circle. In turn, the 3rd respondent has auctioned the said rights to cut the trees, which had been given to it for a sum of Rs.1,49,186/-, in favour of the 5th respondent for a sum of Rs.1,66,370/-. Challenging the order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ petition. 3.Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Procedure for conducting public auction of leases and sales in Panchayats) Rules 2001. The learned counsel submitted that the lease has been granted by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 5th respondent by contravening the procedure established under Rules 14 and 15 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Procedure for conducting public auction of leases and sales in Panchayats) Rules 2001. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that the auction has been confirmed in favour of the 5th respondent after making publication by way of tom-tom and affixing the auction notice in the office of the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel fairly submitted that the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Procedure for conducting public auction of leases and sales in Panchayats) Rules 2001 have not been followed. It is further submitted that in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that the procedures having not been followed by the 3rd respondent and consequently, the auction is liable to be set aside, the 3rd respondent may be permitted to conduct fresh auction by following the said procedure or in the alternative, to cut the trees by engaging its own men. The learned counsel also submitted that the 5th respondent has cut the trees covering 2 loads of lorry for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submitted that in pursuant to the auction, he has cut 2 loads of lorry of trees and sold it to various third parties. The learned counsel further submitted that in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion by setting aside the auction and the consequential confirmation in favour of the 5th respondent, the proportionate amount paid by him will have to be returned. The learned counsel also submitted that if the 3rd respondent proceeds to have a re-auction, the 5th respondent may also be permitted to take part in the same. 6.Admittedly, the procedure contemplated under Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Procedure for conducting public auction of leases https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 and sales in Panchayats) Rules 2001 have not been followed. The 3rd respondent while auctioning the lease right for cutting of trees has not issued a proper publication as contemplated under Rule 15. Rule 15 prescribes the mode for publication of auction notice. It is specifically mandates that the auction notice shall be caused to the public in the District Gazette at least 7 days in advance of the date of auction. It further states that by inserting a brief advertisement in a Tamil daily newspaper, having wide daily circulation in the panchayat area, the general public will have to be intimated at least 3 days ahead of the date of auction. Since the said procedure having not been complied with, we are of the view that the order impugned passed by the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside. 7.Accordingly, the order impugned is hereby set aside. However, taking into consideration of the fact that the 5th respondent has deposited the highest bid amount and he has cut and removed 2 loads of trees, the 3rd respondent is directed to return the amount deposited by the 5th respondent by deducting a sum of Rs.20,000/- which according to the 3rd respondent is the value of the trees cut. It is well open to the 3rd respondent either to conduct a re-auction by following the procedure established by law by making appropriate publication or in the alternative, can cut the trees by engaging its own men. 8.The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The 3rd respondent is directed to return the sum due to the 5th respondent, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It is further made clear that in the event of any re-auction to be conducted by the 3rd respondent, the 5th respondent is also permitted to take part in the same. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Ramanathapuram. 3.The President, Madanthai Village Panchayat, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 4.S.Devi, President, Madanthai Village Panchayat, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 5. Lakshmanan, M.Nedungulam, Paramakudi Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District. 6.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Ramanathapuram. 7.The Forest Ranger, Social Forestry Circle, Paramakudi. +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.22767 +1CC TO MR.D.SENTHIL, ADVOCATE SR.22628 +1CC TO MR.D.SASIKUMAR, ADVOCATE SR.22767 nbj SR : 20.07.2011 : 4p/11c W.P.(MD)No.4803 of 2011 12.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/