A. RAVI Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the issues involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, both the writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal. W.P. (MD) No. 17391 of 2013 has been filed by one of the residents of the village, challenging the tender notification in respect of fishery rights of Keelapavoor Periyakulam Tank on the ground that it was conducted without following the procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred as "the Act'). He would mainly contend that the auction notice itself was not made public and no public notice was published inviting a closed tender in order to stop third parties including the person like the petitioner from participating in the tender process. Therefore, he could not participate and that auction was conducted on 25.09.2013. The fourth respondent has placed his offer for a sum of Rs. 1,52,100/ - and he was declared as successful bidder and immediately thereafter, when the petitioner came to know about the auction, he has also offered Rs. 1,70,000/ - by enclosing a Demand Draft for the said amount. Since it has not been responded to, the respondents have violated the Act. Therefore, he made a representation on 17.10.2013 including his acceptance for Rs. 1,70,000/ -. Since it has not been considered, he has filed this petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus.

(2.) PENDING this writ petition, one of the participants in the auction has filed W.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2014 forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from confirming the auction in respect of fishery rights of Keelapavoor Periyakulam Tank and to conduct fresh auction. He would contend that the auction was not duly called for. Therefore, 35 persons only have participated. He was one among the participants. As the auction was conducted in a small room and it cannot accommodate 35 people and the other officers, he was relegated to one corner near the gate of the room. After the fourth respondent made the offer of Rs. 1,52,100/ -, the petitioner has also made an offer for Rs. 2,00,000/ -. Similarly, one Muthusamy also made an offer for Rs. 2,00,000/ -, but the third respondent did not accept the highest offer instead concluded the tender in favour of the fourth respondent. The entire auction proceedings was over within a span of 30 minutes. Therefore, the respondents immediately directed the petitioner and others, except the fourth respondent, to disperse from the place and asked the other participants to accept the deposited amount. However, the petitioner and the said Muthusamy refused to receive the deposited amount. Even on the next day the petitioner and the said Muthusamy submitted a petition before the third respondent seeking fresh auction so that the loss to the Government could be stopped. The petitioner and Muthusamy gave a representation on 30.09.2013 itself to the first respondent and it was forwarded to the third respondent. Subsequently, by a fax on 15.10.2013 also sought for fresh auction. Even thereafter, the third respondent did not entertain the same. Therefore, the petitioner would state that the entire auction proceedings is vitiated which is against the Act.

(3.) THE third respondent has also filed a counter in W.P. (MD) No. 17391 of 2013 stating that the said notification has been given adequate and wide publicity in the village and thereafter 35 bidders have participated in the said auction. The petitioner's intention is only to drag on the proceedings. The previous year auction was confirmed for only a sum of Rs. 97,300/ -. Therefore, the offer of Rs. 1,52,100/ - in the present auction is a good amount. The procedures as contemplated under the Act is scrupulously followed. In fact, as claimed by the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 17391 of 2013, he did not send the Demand Draft for Rs. 1,70,000/ -, he only sent a photo copy of the demand draft and he was not a participant. The petitioner's objection was not considered because the original demand draft was not sent. He also would contend that the tender has not yet been confirmed and it is pending due to administrative reasons and also sought for vacating the status quo order granted by this Hon'ble Court as early as on 05.11.2013.