MOHAMED FAZAL Vs. K S PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE B.Gowdappa, Proprietor of M/s.Sree Anand Mansion (Boarding & Lodging), Hosur, comprised in S.No.968/1A2, Sennathur Village, Krishnagiri Road, Hosur-635109, availed a loan of Rs.16.95 lakh out of the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.19.20 lakh for construction of a hotel at Sennathur village, Krishnagiri Road, by mortgaging the said property, measuring an extent of 2623 sq.ft. along with superstructure put up therein from Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (TIIC in short). Since he fell in default, TIIC foreclosed the loan account and took constructive possession of the property during 2002 and subsequently, brought the assets in public auction eight times between 2002 and 2011.

(2.) WHEN the property was brought for auction sale for the seventh time on 30.12.2010, one sealed tender was received from one M.Sivakumar of Salem for Rs.30 lakh and in the open auction, there were two participants, viz. S.K.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, Salem and K.V.Sudanthiram of Dharmapuri. It is seen from the materials placed on record that the bid value quoted in open auction by the said S.K.Senthilkumar was Rs.25 lakh and the tender of the above said Sivakumar was higher and he had enhanced his offer from Rs.30 lakh to Rs.50 lakh on negotiation. It is also seen from the records that in the meantime, the appellant, had submitted a representation dated 3.2.2011 to TIIC head office, stating that he was willing to offer Rs.55 lakh for the said property by depositing Rs.12 lakh as EMD, to show his bona fide and hence TIIC had cancelled the auction conducted on 30.12.2010 and having decided to bring the property for re-auction, in order to fetch better price for the property, issued an auction notice in the Tamil Daily 'Dina Thanthi' on 17.2.2011. As scheduled, the auction was conducted on 2.3.2011 by the Branch Manager of TIIC, Hosur, wherein, according to TIIC, the appellant alone had participated and quoted the highest amount of Rs.56 lakhs and the said offer was enhanced to Rs.59 lakhs after negotiations. Accordingly, by the communication dated 3.3.2011, the appellant was issued with the Sale Confirmation letter, requiring him to remit the balance amount so as to execute the sale deed in his favour.

(3.) MR.Vijay Narayanan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would strenuously argue that the writ petitioner has not at all participated in the auction conducted and after the sale confirmation certificate has been issued in the name of the successful bidder/the appellant herein, the first respondent/writ petitioner has filed the present writ proceedings with an ulterior motive. The learned senior counsel would draw our attention to the grounds of appeal, wherein it has been stated that the High Court is not a tender issuing or accepting authority before whom such application for considering the tender can be made and the High Court cannot usurp the power under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act, to accept an offer for participation in tender and allow the same and that the writ petitioner having failed to participate on the date of public auction, cannot use this Court as a forum to consider the acceptance of his application for tender on date other than the auction date fixed by the TIIC.