Madras High Court
The District Collector vs Gnana Ramesh on 20 January, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1276 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1276 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.7292 of 2020
1.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Kanyakumari.
2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,
Collector Campus,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Executive Officer,
Mulagumoodu Town Panchayat,
Mulagumoodu,
Kanyakumari District. : Appellants
Vs.
1.Gnana Ramesh
2.Reegan
3.Martin
4.Jishadass
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1276 of 2020
5.Rajendran
6.Sona : Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the order
dated 04.09.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.7483 of 2020
For Appellants : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.T.Arul
for R.1 to R.3
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants aggrieved over the
order of the learned Single Judge, in W.P.(MD)No.7483 of 2020, dated
04.09.2020, who passed the following order:
“5. In this case, no offer was made to the petitioners 1 and 2.
Therefore, the entire process is clearly vitiated as the local body did not
follow G.O.(Ms.)No.92, dated 03.07.2007. Therefore, the fourth
respondent / Jishadass and the fifth respondent / Rajendran, who have
been allotted the shops originally occupied by the petitioners 1 and 2
will have to be vacated. In this case, the learned counsel states that the
shops have already been closed and the fourth and fifth respondents will
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1276 of 2020
have to be refunded, whatever was paid to the local body. The local
body will refund the remitted amount with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum and the fourth and fifth respondents have to be paid
compensation. The petitioners 1 and 2 come forward to pay a sum of Rs.
10,000/- each so that the same can be given as compensation to the
fourth and fifth respondents respectively. Since the third petitioner /
Martin was never an allottee, there is no question of vacating the sixth
respondent / Sona.
6. Further, the petitioners agree to pay rent on part with what was
agreed to be paid by the respondents 4 and 5 respectively. Since tender
process was conducted and the respondents 4 and 5 have come forward
to pay Rs.3395, it represents the market rate. The petitioners 1 and 2
have been paying only Rs.591/-. The petitioners 1 and 2 shall pay the
amount offered to be paid to the fourth and fifth respondents
respectively from this month onwards. The third respondent Panchayat
will refund the amount ordered with interest plus Rs.10,000/0 as
compensation. The petitioners 1 and 2 agree to bear the burden of
compensation. The sixth respondent need not be disturbed.
7. The petitioners 1 and 2 shall pay the 10 months' rent as
advance amount to the third respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 states that
their things are kept inside the shops. The same shall also be returned
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1276 of 2020
without any delay.
9. The writ petition is partly allowed on the above terms. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.”
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 05.01.2021 and upon
hearing both sides, this Court passed the following order:
“2. However, Mr.T.Arul, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents / writ petitioners submitted that the procedures
contemplated under Section 9(3) and Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and Rules, 2000, have not been
followed. It is further submitted that the highest bidders are not willing
to proceed with the matter and the order of the learned Single Judge has
already been complied with. Now, the first respondent is willing to pay
the same amount, which the highest bidder has agreed to pay.
3. In this regard, the learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants seeks time to get instructions.
4. Post the matter on 20.01.2021 under the caption “For
Orders”.”
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1276 of 2020
3. Today, the learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions,
submitted that the respondents / writ petitioners have deposited a sum of
Rs.33,950/- and Rs.33,800/-, respectively, for two shops, through Demand Drafts
and the remaining requirements have also been complied with.
4. Mr.T.Arul, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents / writ
petitioners submitted that they would stand with the submission made earlier, by
paying the highest bid amount and the further amount, which would otherwise be
payable by the highest bidder, during the currency of the license. In view of the
above, the appellants cannot be said to be aggrieved.
5. The highest bidders have also made a submission before the learned
Single Judge, which has also been recorded, that they would like to take back their
amount. They have also not chosen to file any appeal as against the order of the
learned Single Judge. Thus, we are of the view that this writ appeal can be closed
by recording the aforesaid developments. Needless to state that if the date of the
demand drafts given by the respondents / writ petitioners expires, the same will
have to be re-validated within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1276 of 2020
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
gk
copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the issues on merit with respect to the
proposed auction are not gone into, being unnecessary.
6. In fine, this writ appeal stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Index : Yes / No [M.M.S.,J.] [S.A.I.,J.]
Internet : Yes 20.01.2021
gk
W.A.(MD)No.1276 of 2020
http://www.judis.nic.in
