AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Kulasekaran, J.—By consent of both sides, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
It is submitted by Mr. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation dated 09.12.2003 alleged to have been sent by
the petitioner was not sent by the petitioner or his representatives. Hence he submitted that the representation ought not to have been taken into
account.
The learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents submits that the tender has been opened on 21.02.2004 and the highest bidder
has offered to pay Rs.25,250/- per month, which works out to Rs.3,03,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and three thousand only) per annum whereas
the petitioner has offered last year only Rs. One lakh per annum.
The learned counsel Mr. Chandrasekaran, submitted that the petitioner is willing to pay Rs.3,03,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and three thousand
only) so that the license may be renewed in favour of the petitioner for a further period of one year from 01.03.2004. The learned counsel for the
respondents has no objection for that.
Hence I direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,03,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and three thousand only) lump sum on or before 01.03.2004,
failing which, it is always open to the respondents to confirm the auction in favour of the highest bidder forthwith.
The writ petition is disposed of on above terms. WPMP No.497 of 2004 is closed.