Madras High Court
M.S.Manojith vs The District Collector on 9 June, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD) No.15385 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.15385 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.11625 & 11627 of 2025
M.S.Manojith ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
2. The Assistant Director,
Town Panchayat,
Collectorate Campus,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3. The Executive Officer,
Thirparappu Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Thumbacode,
Kanyakumari District.
4. The President,
Thirparappu Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Thumbacode,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 12:53:11 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.15385 of 2025
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the
impugned notification in Na.Ka.No. 144/2025/A2, dated 27.05.2025 issued by
the third respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the third respondent
to allow the petitioner in collection of Entry Fees for Thirparappu Water Falls
based on the previous auction conducted on 23.05.2025.
For petitioner : Mr. G.Radhakrishnan
For respondents : Mr.Ajmal Khan
Additional Advocate General-I,
Asst. by Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman
Government Advocate for R1 & R2
Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Additional Government Pleader for R3 & R4
*****
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the impugned auction notice, dated
27.05.2025, proposing the auction to be held on 10.06.2025 for collection of
entry fee at Thirparappu water falls at Kanyakumari district.
2. The petitioner was a successful bidder, pursuant to the auction notice,
dated 13.05.2025 and the auction was held on 23.05.2025, wherein the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 12:53:11 pm )
emerged as a higher bidder and offered to pay a sum of Rs.85,99,999/-. The
petitioner was also informed that the petitioner’s bid was provisionally accepted
by the third respondent and that the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of
Rs.1,02,34,000/- which was also deposited by the petitioner.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that despite having accepted the
aforesaid amount, the third respondent has, now, proceeded to issue impugned
auction, notice dated 27.05.2025.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General-I for the respondents 1 and 2
submits that there is a cartel by the petitioner and others and therefore, an attempt
was made to ensure only highest bid was made during auction. However, the
highest offer that was made only Rs.85,99,999/-, which was much lower than the
highest bid for the period of 2023-24, Rs.1,40,00,000/- by the previous highest
bidder, namely, Suman.
5. It is submitted that the acceptance of the offer was subject to the
confirmation of the offer by the Council and that the Council has passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 12:53:11 pm )
resolution on 27.05.2025 stating that the amount that was offered by the
petitioner did not match with the previous bid amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- by the
said Suman.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General-I drew attention to clause 10
of the tender notice, dated 13.05.2025, which clearly stipulates that the
acceptance of the offer is subject to the confirmation by the Council. The relevant
clause reads as under:
“brYj;jpa Vy itg;g[j;bjhif Fj;jif fhyk; Koe;jJk;
jzpf;iff;F cl;gl;L tl;oapd;wo jpUg;gp mspf;fg;gLk;/ Vyk;
ngU:uhl;rp kd;wj;jpd; m';fPfhu;j;jpwF
; l;gl;lJ/”
7. The learned Additional Advocate General-I for the respondents 1 and 2
also drew attention to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in following
two cases:
1. State of Punjab and others vs. Mehar Din reported in (2022) 5 SCC 648;
2. State of Jharkhand and others vs. CWE-Soma Consortium reported in
(2016) 14 SCC 172.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 12:53:11 pm )
8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
response to the impugned tender notice, the petitioner has also made a bid and
will participate in the tender auction that has to be held on 10.06.2025.
9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General-I for the respondents 1 and 2
and the learned Additional Government Pleader for R3 and R4.
10. The tender notification is only invitation to make offer, pursuant to
which the bidders make offer. Unless the offer is accepted and contract is signed,
the highest bidder cannot have any right to enforce the contract, which was not
signed.
11. In fact, the two mentioned decisions has also clarified the position. In
first decision in Mehar Din’s case (cited supra), it has held that it is not disputed
that the auction sale conducted by the Tehsildar Sales on 04.06.1993 was
provisionally accepted in favour of the respondent being the highest bidder.
Pursuant thereto, 1/5th of the bid amount as earnest money was deposited, but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 12:53:11 pm )
that acceptance being provisional, was subject to confirmation by the Sales
Commissioner. When the proceedings of auction were placed for confirmation
before the competent authority (Sales Commissioner), the competent authority
after perusing the record of auction observed that the provisional bid is quite on
the lower side and looking to the location of the property in question, it needs a
good publicity to fetch the better sale price of the subject land and while
cancelling the auction sale, directed to initiate the process of re-auction and
further observed that he should be informed in advance and intended to remain
present at the time of auction by order dated 02.07.1993. That apart, it is not
disputed that total applicants were fourteen but only three bidders had
participated in the bidding process. In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed in para 19 as follows:
“19.This Court has examined right of the highest bidder at
public auctions in umpteen number of cases and it was repeatedly
pointed out that the State or authority which can be held to be State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is not bound to
accept the highest tender of bid. The acceptance of the highest bid or
highest bidder is always subject to conditions of holding public
auction and the right of the highest bidder is always provisional to be
examined in the context in different conditions in which the auction
has been held. In the present case, no right had accrued to the
respondent even on the basis of statutory provisions as being
contemplated under Rule 8(1)(h) of Chapter III of the Scheme of
Rules, 1976 and in terms of the conditions of auction notice notified
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 12:53:11 pm )
for public auction.”
12. The bid was not confirmed by the Competent Authority and therefore,
the discretion was exercised by the Competent Authority in taking a decision for
cancellation. In fact, in para 27 of the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held under:
“27.This being a settled law that the highest bidder has no
vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour and in the
given circumstances under the limited scope of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court was not
supposed to interfere in the opinion of the executive who were
dealing on the subject, unless the decision is totally arbitrary or
unreasonable, and it was not open for the High Court to sit like a
Court of Appeal over the decision of the competent authority and
particularly in the matters where the authority competent of floating
the tender is the best judge of its requirements, therefore, the
interference otherwise has to be very minimal.”
13. The same view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the second
mentioned case in CWE-Soma Consortium’s case (cited supra) in paras 13, 15,
20, 23, which are held as under:
“13. In case of a tender, there is no obligation on the part
of the person issuing tender notice to accept any of the tenders
or even the lowest tender. After a tender is called for and on
seeing the rates or the status of the contractors who have given
tenders that there is no competition, the person issuing tender
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 12:53:11 pm )
may decide not to enter into any contract and thereby cancel the
tender. It is well-settled that so long as the bid has not been
accepted, the highest bidder acquires no vested right to have the
auction concluded in his favour (vide Laxmikant and Ors.
v.Satyawan and Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 208; Rajasthan Housing
Board and Anr. v. G.S. Investments and Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 477
and Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikash Parishad and Ors. v. Om
Prakash Sharma (2013) 5 SCC 182).
...
15.The State derives its power to enter into a contract
under Article 298 of the Constitution of India and has the right
to decide whether to enter into a contract with a person or not
subject only to the requirement of reasonableness under Article
14 of the Constitution of India. In the case in hand, in view of
lack of real competition, the state found it advisable not to
proceed with the tender with only one responsive bid available
before it. When there was only one tenderer, in order to make
the tender more competitive, the tender committee decided to
cancel the tender and invited a fresh tender and the decision of
the appellant did not suffer from any arbitrariness or
unreasonableness.
...
20.Admittedly, in the pre-bid meeting held on 24.03.2014,
ten tenderers have participated. After conclusion of the pre-bid
meeting on 24.03.2014, as a result of stringent conditions
prescribed in clause 4.5(A)(a) and 4.5(A)(c), only three
tenderers could participate in the bidding process and submit
their bids. As noticed earlier, upon scrutiny two were found non-
responsive. In our considered view, High Court erred in
presuming that there was adequate competition. In order to
make the tender more competitive, tender committee in its
collective wisdom has taken the decision to cancel and re-invite
tenders in the light of SBD norms. As noticed earlier, the same
was reiterated in a subsequent meeting held on 09.07.2014.
While so, the High Court was not justified to sit in judgment
over the decision of tender Committee and substitute its opinion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 12:53:11 pm )
on the cancellation of tender. Decision of the state issuing
tender notice to cancel the tender and invite fresh tenders could
not have been interfered with by the High Court unless found to
be mala fide or arbitrary. When the authority took a decision to
cancel the tender due to lack of adequate competition and in
order to make it more competitive, it decided to invite fresh
tenders, it cannot be said that there is any mala fide or want of
bona fide in such decision. While exercising judicial review in
the matter of government contracts, the primary concern of the
court is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-
making process or whether it is vitiated by mala fide,
unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
...
23.The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is
always available to the government. In the case in hand, the
respondent has neither pleaded nor established mala fide
exercise of power by the appellant. While so, the decision of
tender committee ought not to have been interfered with by the
High Court. In our considered view, the High Court erred in
sitting in appeal over the decision of the appellant to cancel the
tender and float a fresh tender. Equally, the High Court was not
right in going into the financial implication of a fresh tender.”
14. Law on the subject clears that there is no scope in interfering with the
tender floated by the respondents.
15. Hence, this Writ Petition is become infractuous, as the petitioner has
also offered the bid in response to the tender floated on 27.05.2025. Since the
petitioner already made a bid in response to the above said tender notification, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 12:53:11 pm )
is open to the petitioner to make competitive bid.
16. This Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 09.06.2025
Internet : Yes / No
apd
To
1. The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
2. The Assistant Director,
Town Panchayat,
Collectorate Campus,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3. The Executive Officer,
Thirparappu Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Thumbacode,
Kanyakumari District.
4. The President,
Thirparappu Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Thumbacode,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 12:53:11 pm )
C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
09.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 12:53:11 pm )
