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.897 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 & 2 of 2011 Mr.A.M.Karunanithi :Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Forest Officer, Theni District Range,K.R.R.Nagar, Housing Unit Colony, Theni. 2.S.Otchathevar 3.M.Alaguraja 4.T.Kamalam : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notification of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.10771/2010/L, dated 29.09.2010 and its subsequent proceedings and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct a fresh auction and thereby permit the petitioner to participate in the said auction. For Petitioner :Mr.P.Gunasekaran For Respondent No. 1 :Mr.P.Thilak Kumar O R D E R The petitioner challenges the auction notification, dated 29.09.2010 calling for bids for the purpose of granting lease hold right of plucking tamarind fruits from the tamarind trees lying in the Guddalore, Cumbum, Chinnamanoor and reserved forests in the District of Theni. 2. According to the petitioner, the last date for submission of tenders was on 15.12.2010. Though the petitioner was ready to submit his bid along with the required money for making deposit, the first respondent refused to accept the bid. The petitioner originally challenged the notification, dated 29.09.2010 in W.P.No.14982 of 2010. When the above said Writ petition came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate on instructions submitted that the bid was confirmed by the first respondent on 15.12.2010 in the name of respondents 2 to 4. Accordingly, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition with liberty to challenge the order of confirmation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. However, without challenging the confirmation order, the petitioner has filed this Writ petition once again challenging the very same notification, dated 29.09.2010. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was not given a copy of the confirmation order and as such he has filed the Writ petition once again to challenge the notification, dated 29.09.2010. 4. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the notification, dated 29.09.2010 again and again. In case the first respondent has not given a copy of the confirmation order, the petitioner could have obtained the same under the Right to Information Act. Similarly, he could have file a Writ petition for obtaining a copy of the confirmation order. However, no such course was adopted by the petitioner. 5. Therefore, I am of the view that the present Writ petition challenging the very same notification, dated 29.09.2010 is clearly not maintainable since the first respondent has already confirmed the bid as per proceedings, dated 16.12.2010. 6. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to give a copy of the confirmation order to the petitioner by registered post. It is also open to the petitioner to produce a copy of this order before the first respondent and on such production, the first respondent is directed to hand over a copy of the order of confirmation, within a period of three days from the date of receipt/production of this order. 7. The Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( ACCOUNTS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR pm To The District Forest Officer, Theni District Range,K.R.R.Nagar, Housing Unit Colony, Theni. 1CC TO MR. P. GUNASEKARAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 2902:' 1CC TO THE SPL.GOVT PLEADER SR: 2873: DM:2011:JANURARY:25: W.P.(MD)No.897 of 2011 24.01.2011 2P:4C:; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/