K. KUTTI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was one of the lessees of the shops of the third respondent at old Bus stand in Vellore and since the possession of the said shops was demanded by the Corporation for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, the petitioner was directed to surrender possession. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1039 of 2020 and by an order, dtd. 5/7/2022, the said Writ Petition was disposed off by directing the Corporation to give preferential allotment to the petitioner and to take steps to allot shops within a period of eight weeks therefrom by following the appropriate guidelines. Under these circumstances, by accepting to allot one shop on lot basis, the petitioner was directed to take part in the drawal of the lot which was to be conducted on 14/11/2022 and for the said purpose, as is required from the prospective bidders in respect of the other shops, the petitioner was requested to furnish solvency for Rs.15,00,000.00 and to deposit Rs.10,00,000.00 on or before participating in the drawal of the lot. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition in W.P.No.30751 of 2021 was filed.

(2.) By a judgment dtd. 22/11/2022, the learned Single Judge, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Vs. State of Karnataka,(2012) 8 SCC 216 held that the third respondent Corporation is entitled to have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender and when no malafide or arbitrariness is shown, the Court cannot interfere with the same and dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is laid before this Court.

(3.) Mr.S.Thiruvengadam, learned Counsel for the appellant, drawing our attention to the disability certificate issued to the writ petitioner by the competent authority, submitted that the petitioner is a differently abled person with a disability percentage of 60%. Even in the present tender called for by the third respondent Corporation, in respect of the shop which is earmarked for physically handicapped, only a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 is demanded as solvency and Rs.5,00,000.00 is demanded as deposit. Therefore, directing the petitioner for Rs.10,00,000.00 deposit and Rs.15,00,000.00 solvency and that too within an impossible period was arbitrary on the part of the third respondent.