R NAVANEETHAM Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the respondents wherein the auction conducted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.

(2.) THE writ petitioner participated in the auction conducted by the respondents on 30.10.2007. THE said auction was conducted in pursuance of an advertisement made by the respondents on 01.10.2007. THE petitioner became the successful bidder and made the required payment in-person to the auction. THEreafter, the second respondent rejected the confirmation and returned the amount deposited by the petitioner and an order was passed on 10.01.2008 by the second respondent cancelling the auction on the ground that the bid amount is very low and that they have decided to go for re-auction.

(3.) AS submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, in the absence of any concluded contract between the parties, this court sitting under Article 226 cannot exercise its jurisdiction. Admittedly, in the present case, the auction has not been confirmed. The sufficiency of the amount fetched in the auction has to be fixed by the respondents and this court cannot interfere with the same. The petitioner does have any vested or legal right to challenge such an auction of the respondents. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, being the party to the terms and conditions and after accepting the same by participating in the auction, the petitioner cannot go against the same and say cancellation is bad in law.