K. Balakrishnan vs The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur and another

Bakthavatsalam, J.

The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent appointing the second respondent as Additional Auctioneer in Nagapattinam Division.

The petitioner alleges that he is the approved auctioneer and functioning as an auctioneer for the Nagapattinam District for the past 15 years. The

second respondent has been appointed as an additional auctioneer by the first respondent contrary to the Customs under Rule 12(2) of the Tamil

Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules, 1944. It is also stated in the affidavit that Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent person to appoint auctioneer for

more than one division. He himself appointed the second respondent as auctioneer against the convention and rules.

Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 3-7-1989.

Learned Counsel Mr. P. Arivudainambi, Government Advocate appears for the 1st respondent. No appearance on behalf of the second

respondent.

Mr. N. Palaniappan, learned Counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice R. 12(2) of the Tamilnadu Pawn Brokers Rules, 1944, wherein it is

stated that an auctioneer approved by the Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Madras or the Revenue Divisional Officer, as the case

may be, shall be competent to conduct public auctions under these rules only within the area specified by the Officer approving the auctioneer.

Under sub-rule 12(1) of the Tamilnadu Pawn Brokers Rules, 1944, the auctioneer to whom the sale or a pledge by public auction is entrusted shall

be a person approved by the Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Madras in the City of Madras and the Revenue Divisional Officer

elsewhere.

Mr. Arivudainambi, Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent is not able to defend the order. In my view the rule does not

empower the District Revenue Officer to pass the impugned order. My attention is not drawn to any rule which empowers the first respondent to

pass the impugned order.

In view of Rule 12 of the Tamilnadu Pawn Brokers Rules, 1944, the impugned order cannot be sustained. As such, the impugned order is set

aside as one passed without jurisdiction. Petition will stand allowed. No costs.

Petition allowed.