S SHARRAVVANAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second petitioner, who was the highest bidder in the tender-cum-public auction conducted during February 1996, has questioned the order passed by the third respondent, the Joint Registrar, PMT District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Sivaganga dated 5.6.96.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is as follows. The erstwhile "Ramanathapuram District Central Cooperative Bank Limited" was functioning with head quarters at Madurai upto 1.9.93. On the trifurcation of the District into three separate revenue districts, the said bank was also trifurcated into three banks viz., (1) Ramanathapuram District Central Cooperative Bank Limited with head quarters at Ramanathapuram, (2) Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District Central Cooperative Bank Limited with head quarters at Sivaganga and (3) Kamarajar District Central Cooperative Bank Limited with head quarters at Virudhunagar. On and from 2.9.93, all the three banks started functioning in the respective head quarters. Hence, the head office building of the erstwhile composite bank situate at Madurai became vacant and proposals were initiated to sell the building with vacant land. All the three banks by resolution no.28 dated 18.9.93 jointly resolved to sell the building and vacant land in question.

(3.) In terms of Rule 78(3) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), "The Ramanathapuram District Central Cooperative Bank Limited" applied for permission to the Registrar on 9.3.94. There is no dispute that prior to the above requisition, there was a resolution of the Special Officer of the said bank resolving to sell the building and vacant land in public auction. The said requisition was considered and the Government accorded their permission on 3.5.94 followed by the permission accorded by the Registrar on 17.5.94 under Rule 78(3) of the Rules. In view of the above, the joint committee of the banks was constituted by the Registrar which resolved to conduct tender-cum-public auction. Though an offer was made for Rs.1,53,00,000/- by one Sharravvanan, the first petitioner, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.287, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 20.12.94 granted permission for the sale subject to the rate of bid amount at Rs.1,77,12,000/-. In view of the said Government Order, the bid amount was raised and permission for sale was granted on 27.1.95. The highest bid of Rs.1,77,12,200/- was offered by the first petitioner. The tender proceedings were challenged before this Court and pending the writ petitions, stay of tender proceedings was ordered. Challenging the order of stay, the first petitioner herein filed appeal in W.A.No.939 of 1995. A Division Bench of this Court heard the writ appeal along with the writ petitions and by judgment dated 21.11.95, issued certain directions, which will be referred to in the later portion of this order. Pursuant to the directions, tender-cum-public auction was conducted. In the public auction, one M.Janakiraman offered Rs.3,75,00,000/-. Since he withdrew his offer, the second petitioner who was the next highest bidder offered a sum of Rs.3,75,00,000/-. The offer was placed before the general body of the three District Central Cooperative Banks Limited and the same was accepted. The matter was again placed before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the second respondent who, according to the petitioners, approved the same in terms of Rule 78(3) of the Rules. It appears that the second respondent forwarded the entire papers to the Government for confirmation of sale. The Government decided not to dispose of the building and vacant land. By the impugned order dated 5.6.96, the decision of the Government namely, "for the present there was no necessity to dispose of the vacant site and building of the composite Ramanathapuram District Central Cooperative Bank Limited situated at Madurai and decided to close the case without accepting the tender." was communicated to the first petitioner by the third respondent. Though this order was initially questioned by the first petitioner alone, as it was presumably pointed out that the first petitioner was not the actual bidder and therefore could not maintain the writ petition, the second petitioner came on record by the orders of this Court dated 29.7.97 in W.M.P.No.17315 of 1997. (1) Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the entire issue as to the sale was decided by the Division Bench of this Court while giving directions to the respondents to conduct public auction, of course, subject to certain conditions by judgment dated 21.11.95. The first respondent-State Government was also a party to the said judgment and therefore the directions of the Division Bench are binding on the first respondent as well. In the said judgment, the Division Bench had only directed the property to be sold in tender-cum-public auction subject to the minimum upset price of Rs.1,77,12,000/-.