P. Kottaisamy vs The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation

M. Jaichandren , J.—This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent to conduct a re-auction, in respect of the demolition of the Central Market buildings, situated near the Shree Meenakshiamman Temple, Madurai, by considering the Petitioner''s representation, dated 28.10.2010.

Heard Mr. K.K. Senthil, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as Mr. M. Ravishankar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

The Petitioner has stated that the shops in the old Central Market had been shifted to the newly constructed market at Mattuthavani, Madurai. A multi-level shopping complex is proposed to be constructed at the said place. Therefore, an auction notification, dated 02.10.2010, had been issued by the Respondent, in the Tamil daily newspaper ''Maalai Malar'', for the demolition of the buildings at the old Central Market. The value of the wood had been fixed at Rs. 4,92,000/-and for the old Mangalore tiles the value had been fixed at Rs. 5,000/-.

The Petitioner has further stated that the buildings in the old Central Market had been constructed in the year, 1694 A.D., by the then ruler Rani Mangammal. Without considering the actual value of the wood and the Mangalore tiles, used in the construction of the buildings, the Respondent Corporation had fixed their value at Rs. 4,92,000/-, and Rs. 5,000/-, respectively, which is far below the actual value of the materials in question. In such circumstances, the Petitioner had made a representation to the Respondent, on 28.10.2010, and had offered to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, to be fixed as the upset price for the materials. However, the Respondent had not considered the representation made by the Petitioner. In such circumstances, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Respondent had fixed the value of the wood and the old Mangalore tiles, without properly analyzing the actual value of the materials concerned. Hence, the Respondent Corporation would lose a huge amount of money by confirming the auction in favor of the highest bidder, who had quoted Rs. 5,25,000/-. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to set aside the auction conducted by the Respondent, on 18.10.2010, and to direct the Respondent to conduct a re-auction, accepting the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, offered by the Petitioner, as the value of the wood and the old Mangalore tiles.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent had submitted that even though the auction notification had been published in the Tamil daily newspaper ''Maalai Malar'', on 02.10.2010, the Petitioner had not opted to participate in the auction, held on 18.10.2010. The auction had been confirmed in the name of one S. Ponmuthu, who was the highest bidder, who had made his bid for a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/-. The confirmation order had also been issued in his favor, on 20.10.2010. In such circumstances, it is not open to the Petitioner to claim that the Respondent should conduct a re-auction, as prayed for by him.

It is also noted that the Petitioner has not impleaded the highest bidder in whose name the auction had been confirmed, even though he is a necessary party to the present writ petition.

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as the Respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason, to grant the relief''s, as prayed for by the Petitioner, in the present writ petition. Even though the auction notification had been published in the Tamil daily newspaper ''Maalai Malar'', on 02.10.2010, the Petitioner had not participated in the said auction, which had been held, on 18.10.2010. Thereafter, the confirmation order had also been issued to the highest bidder, on 20.10.2010. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the Petitioner to substantiate his claim that the wood, as well as the old Mangalore tiles, had not been properly valued. Even though he had offered a higher amount and had prayed for a direction to the Respondent to conduct a re-auction, this Court does not find it appropriate to accept the offer made by the Petitioner, at this belated stage. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.