LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-198

M.ARULPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On July 22, 2020
M.Arulprakash Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the Tender Notification issued by the second respondent wherein two shops were sought to be brought on auction for the purpose of giving it on lease to the highest bidder and the petitioner has also made a consequential prayer for a direction to the respondents to hand over the possession of the shops.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner participated in the auction that was conducted in the year 2017 and he was a successful bidder for Shop Nos.23 and 24 and those shops were given on lease to the petitioner. The period of lease is from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2020. According to the petitioner, he has deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh for each shop and has also paid a sum of Rs.1,33,200/- for each shop towards advance rent for a period of one year. Thus the petitioner claims to have deposited a total sum of Rs.4,66,400/- for both the shops put together. The petitioner would further state that the possession of both the shops was not handed over to the petitioner since the shops required some repair works and there were some dues payable to the Electricity Department and therefore, there was no electricity connection. It is seen from the records that the petitioner had made a representation in this regard on 31.03.2017.

(3.) It is further alleged by the petitioner that the possession of the shops were not handed over to the petitioner and atleast two Commissioners had promised that the possession will be handed over. Believing their words, the petitioner was waiting for taking possession of the shops. However nothing happened, till the year 2020. The further case of the petitioner is that he gave a representation on the Grievance Day on 09.03.2020 to the District Collector in this regard. The petitioner claims to have approached the second respondent and he is said to have demanded bribe and the petitioner refused to give the same. Therefore, the second respondent has proceeded to bring the shops for auction.