G.DHANABALAN Vs. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition reads as follows:

(2.) The petitioner who is a Municipal Councilor elected from Ward 14 of the Dindigul Municipal Corporation has come up with this writ petition with the above prayer complaining of several irregularities in the conduct of auction for lease of shops belonging to the Municipal Corporation constructed in the municipal bus stand. There are 34 shops which are to be used for commercial purposes situate within the bus stand at Dindigul. The rent from these shops is one of the major revenues for the Municipal Corporation. The right to carry on business in these shops is normally granted by conduct of public auction to the highest bidder at the said auction. The petitioner would claim that the auction of the right to carry on business in these shops which was held on 28/12/2022 was not done in a fair manner. According to him, there was no publicity of the notification regarding auction. The petitioner would claim that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, would apply and the fact that the provisions are not followed would render the entire auction process illegal. Even otherwise, according to the petitioner, since there was absence of wide publicity for the tender cum auction, it did not attract many bidders. The fact that only 47 persons had presented 66 bids for the 34 shops which would show that the very auction was conducted without wide publicity in a hushed up manner and chosen persons were granted the privilege of running commercial establishments in the shops in the bus stand. Though the writ petition proceeded on the footing that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, would apply, the grievance of the petitioner in essence was that due to lack of wide publicity to the auction, it had not attracted many bidders resulting in depleted revenues to the Corporation.

(3.) A counter has been filed by the Commissioner (In-charge) of the Dindigul Municipality contending that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, would not apply and as such, the auction which was held after proper publication of notice, cannot be said to be illegal. It was contended that the auction notice was published in a world renowned newspaper called, Pirpagal (Afternoon) having Nil circulation in Dindigul District. The earlier auction was cancelled by the resolution of the Municipal Council on 17/11/2022 as the successful bidders had not made the pre-deposit required. After the cancellation, all the shops were brought for re-tender on 5/12/2022. Since there were no bidders, the auction was postponed to 16/12/2022. Since there were no bidders on that day also, the auction was postponed to 29/12/2022. On 29/12/2022, 66 bids were placed and since nobody participated in the public auction, the bids were opened and the highest bidders were allotted the shops. The then Commissioner of the Municipality had issued orders of allotment to the highest bidders on the basis of the consent given by the Mayor on 30/12/2022 and 12/1/2023, in anticipation of the consent of the Municipal Council, ultimately, the proposal was placed before the Council in its meeting on 30/1/2023 and the same was approved. It is also claimed that there has been no violation in the allotment. The fact that the tender amount in the subsequent auction was lesser than the amount offered in the previous auction which was cancelled, was sought to be justified by claiming that the previous tenderers have not come forward to take the shops on lease by paying the pre-deposit.