STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. M GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned Judge dated 03. 04. 1998 made in W. P. Nos. 1715, 1716 and 1717 of 1989, in and by which the learned Judge, after accepting the case of the petitioners, directed the respondents therein to refund the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and advance amount to the petitioners.

(2.) FOR convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petitions.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner in WP. No. 1715 of 1989 is briefly stated hereunder: for the Excise year 1984-85 (from 16. 07. 1984 to 15. 07. 1985), he was the auction purchaser in respect of arrack shop AS. No. 4/84-85 Thiruvottiyur Municipality in Saidapet Taluk. The sale was confirmed on 09. 07. 1984 in the name of the petitioner for the highest bid amount of Rs. 1,06,000/ -. The petitioner submitted an application in Form II for grant of licence on 12. 07. 1984 i. e. , within the prescribed time limit. In spite of repeated requests, he was not given licence to enable him to run the shop. On 09. 11. 1984, he received a communication from the Collector, Chengalpattu stating that the shop would be reauctioned since he did not pay 2 = months kist as advance within 7 days from the date of sale. The petitioner brought to notice of the respondents that he remitted 2 = months kist amount even on 22. 06. 1984. Finally on 25. 12. 1984, realising the mistake the third respondent cancelled the proceedings for resale. Though the petitioner selected an unobjectionable site, the same was not duly considered by the authority concerned. By representation dated 23. 02. 1985, he informed the third respondent that since major period of seven months had already lapsed and he could not get licence during all those months, it would be difficult for him to secure an alternate site, and accordingly requested the third respondent to move the Government for deletion of the shop from the sale notification. The petitioner also prayed for refund of the deposit made by him. The petitioner again reminded the third respondent on 06. 03. 1985 and 11. 03. 1985. However, the third respondent rejected the request of the petitioner on 03. 05. 1985 and ordered resale of the shop AS. 4/84-85. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court. Similar averments have been made in other two writ petitions.