1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.P.(MD).Nos.2560 and 2561 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1,1,2,2,3 and 3 of 2011 V.Muniyasamy : Petitioner in Both Writ Petitions Vs. 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Sethupathy Nagar, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 5.K.Boominathan, S/o.Karuppana Thevar, Elanchemboor Post, Mudukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. : Respondents in Both Writ Petitions PRAYER: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned confirmation order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.111/2011/F and Na.Ka.No.110/2011/F, dated 10.01.2011 in favour of the fifth respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to conduct fresh auction insofar the Serial Nos.19 and 21 in the tender notification dated 13.12.2010 is concerned and by considering the petitioner's representation dated 08.02.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 For Petitioner : Mr.M.E.Ilango For Respondents 1to4 : Mr.R.Janakiramulu Special Government Pleader For Respondent 5 : Mr.A.Kannan COMMON ORDER [Order of the Court was made BY K.SUGUNA, J] Since a common issue is involved, both the Writ Petitions were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common Order. 2. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the order dated 10.01.2011 and for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to conduct fresh auction insofar as Serial Nos.19 and 21 in the tender notification dated 13.12.2010 is concerned basing on the representation of the petitioner dated 08.02.2011. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, who is an agriculturist, is a resident of Elanchemboor Village, Mudukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. The third respondent issued the tender notification dated 13.12.2010 for cutting and removal of Julia Flora Trees [Kattukaruvel Trees] standing in the tanks situated at Elanchemboor Village, Mudukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the third respondent, by his impugned proceedings dated 10.01.2011, had confirmed the tender in favour of the fifth respondent herein for a sum of Rs.4,74,056/-, though the total worth of Julia Flora Trees situated in the above tanks comes to Rs.22,00,000/-, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is very low and it would have fetched more than Rs.20,00,000/-. Apart from this, without following the norms, the price has been fixed. Basing on the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order. 4. The official respondent as well as private respondent has filed counter affidavits. As per the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, based on the yield assessment, the upset price is fixed; the yield assessment calculation is done by the Foresters and Rangers; subsequently, it was checked by the Divisional Forest Officer, superchecked by the Conservator of Forests and Chief Conservator of Forests; consequently, there is no possibility for error; in the public auction, there was a heavy competition which indicates that the total sale amount is more than the market value. Apart from this, it is the further stand of the second respondent that in a free, open and transparent sale in public auditorium place where many number of contractors participated, the auction had been held and the rate quoted by the bidders was announced in loudspeakers so that it will be heard upto one kilometre; further, the details of sale area, village, etc., were also published in the Government District Gazette. Besides, it is the further stand of the second respondent that since the fifth respondent has quoted Rs.9,160/- and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7,790/- respectively, he was declared as a successful bidder and he was also issued with the work order on 28.02.2011 and 05.03.2011. 5. To strengthen the contention that the bid amount offered by the fifth respondent is very low, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court any materials. Since it is the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the said amount, the respondents 1 to 4 were put to a great loss, we were of the view that unnecessarily, the respondents 1 to 4 should be forced to face loss, and therefore, we have made it clear that in the event of the petitioner offering a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, it can be given to him and the learned Special Government Pleader has also accepted the same. But, unfortunately, the petitioner has not accepted the said offer, which shows that only to drag on the proceedings, these Writ Petitions have been filed in order to prevent the successful bidders from enjoying the same. Consequently, we are of the opinion that these Writ Petitions are frivolous. Hence, these Writ Petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Sethupathy Nagar, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. +2CC TO Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate, Sr.No.16274 COMMON ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).Nos.2560 and 2561 of 2011 29.04.2011 nb SMA/09.06.2011/7C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/