R. Saravanan vs The Executive Officer and The Chairman, The Selection Grade Town Panchayat,

R. Sudhakar, J.—Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the notification published in

the Tamil News Paper in ""Thina Malar"", Puducherry Edition dated 14.4.2010 issued by the respondents and quash the same and consequently

direct the respondents not to conduct the auction on 28.4.2010 or any other date.

Heard Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader, who appears for the respondents.

The petitioner is a resident of the second respondent town panchayat. He claims to be a bidder in the auction which was held on 28.4.2010.

Petitioner challenges the paper publication announcing the public auction as per Na.Ka. No. A2/15/2008 dated 12.4.2010 fixing the auction date

as 28.4.2010. It is contended that there is a violation of Rule 52.6(4)(b)(ii) of the Municipal Manual and hence the Auction Notification and

auction held is bad. According to the petitioner, by publication dated 14.4.2010, the auction was fixed for 28.4.2010. The minimum fifteen clear

days period as specified under Rule 52.6(4)(b)(ii) of the Municipal Manual has not been adhered to. Therefore, the auction notice is bad and

should be set aside.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the earlier order dated 30.3.2010 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5369 of 2010 to canvass the

above stated plea.

Heard Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, who pleaded that the Auction Notification is as

per the Municipal Manual, and that the writ petition itself may be disposed off as in the earlier case considering the legal plea that alone is

contended.

This Court is not inclined to accept the stand of the petitioner as stated above for the following reasons:

(i) The auction notice challenged in the earlier case is dated 12.3.2010 and the date of auction was fixed on 18.3.2010. The period between the

date of publication and the date of auction is only five days. Hence, Rule 52.6(4)(b)(ii) of the Municipal Manual was invoked, the auction notice

was set aside and a direction was issued to the respondents therein to proceed with the auction following the procedure prescribed. The facts in

the present case is different.

(ii) In the present case, the auction notification was published on 14.4.2010 for the auction to be held on 28.4.2010. The number of days between

the date of publication and the date of auction is thirteen days. Clause (iii) of Rule 52.6(4)(b) of the Municipal Manual provides for minimum

interval of 10 days for auction that is adjourned to the 15th March or to a date prior to the 15th March, (i.e.) from an earlier date.

(iii) Clause (iv) to Rule 52.6(4)(b) of Municipal Manual provides for sale of items mentioned in Clause (i) and (ii) adjourned to a date after the 15th

March, with minimum interval as may be fixed by the Executive Authority.

(iv) In this case, admittedly, the publication is in respect of auction after 15th March, 2010. Hence, the Executive Authority has the power to fix the

time limit, in terms of Clause (iv) of Rule 52.6(4)(b) as above.

(v) In the case where the auction is held prior to 15th of March and once it is adjourned to another date after 15th March, for some reason or

other, the minimum period can be fixed by the Executive Authority at his discretion. This is provided under Clause (iv) of Rule 52.6(4)(b) of the

Municipal Manual. In all other cases a minimum period is fixed for different category as could be seen from the various Clauses (i) to (iv) of the

above Rule.

(vi) In the earlier case, the Auction Notification issued on 12.3.2010 was set aside by this Court for non compliance of Clause (ii) to Rule 52.6(4)

(b) of the Municipal Manual. That position does not arise in the present case as the auction after 15th March. Therefore, the earlier order of this

Court dated 30.3.2010 in W.P. No. 5369 of 2010 will not apply to the facts of the present case.

(vii) Furthermore, there is a public notice already issued in this regard and that has been set aside by this Court for breach of a particular provision.

The further public notice as per Clause (iv) of Rule 52.6(4)(b) satisfies the requirement of vide publicity in respect of auction. In any event Clause

(iv) of Rule provides for such a contingency.

(viii) In the present case, the time limit fixed by the Executive Officer cannot be faulted as he is entitled to fix any date at his discretion as per the

above Rule so long as the sale of items mentioned in Clause (i) and (ii) is adjourned to a date after 15th of March for whatever reason.

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to accept the stand of the petitioner. Finding no merit, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.