Dismissed

S.Kumaran, v. the District Collector

Madras HC16 Apr 2018WP(MD)/5262/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the declaration of a fourth respondent as the successful bidder in a public auction for a two-wheeler parking license. The court held no procedural deviation occurred as the successful bidder quoted a higher amount than the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

No declaration of illegality granted; auction proceedings upheld; bid amounts confirmed.

S.Kumaran, Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.04.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) No.5262 of 2018 ánd W.M.P(MD)No.5247 of 2018

¶7

S.Kumaran

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs. 1. The District Collector, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶10

The Executive Officer, Keeramangalam Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶11

V.Sivagaminathan, The Executive Officer, Keeramangalam Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District. 4. C.Ravi ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the auction conducted by the 2nd respondent pursuant to public auction notice in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.29/2018 dated 28.02.2018 in respect of Item No.7 namely License to collect fee for parking two wheelers and declaring the 4th respondent as successful candidate as illegal and arbitrary and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to conduct Tender - cum - Auction in terms of public auction notice dated 28.02.2018 in a fair and unbiased manner within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan For 1^st Respondent : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam, Additional Government Pleader. For 3^rd Respondent : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.Ramanathan For 4^th Respondent : Mr.Pon.Karthikeyan

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, declaring the fourth respondent as the successful candidate in respect of item No.7 of the public auction notice dated 28.02.2018 for licence to collect fee for parking two wheelers.

¶16

2.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the auction was conducted against the procedure contemplated in the tender cum auction notification.

¶17

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the notification was for a tender cum auction, only auction was conducted and as such, the entire process is vitiated. He further submitted that by deviating the said process, loss has been caused to the local authorities which is against objective of the tender cum auction process to augment the revenue of the local authorities.

¶18

4.Learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submitted that there was no deviation in the tender process and that the petitioner herein had also participated in the public auction and after giving him due opportunity, the fourth respondent was declared as successful bidder in the tender since he had quoted a sum of Rs.2,66,300/- which is more than the bid amount quoted by the petitioner.

¶19

5.Learned counsel for the fourth respondent as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent reiterated the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

¶20

6.I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

¶21

7.I have also perused the original tender register of the second respondent wherein it is seen that as per the tender cum auction notification dated 28.02.2018 in respect of licence to collect parking of two wheelers, the petitioner had quoted a sum of Rs.2,66,200/- whereas the fourth respondent had quoted a sum of Rs.2,66,300/-. Since the fourth respondent's bid was higher than the petitioner herein, he had been declared as the successful bidder. Furthermore, the petitioner herein had not submitted any sealed tender and as such he may not be justified in stating that the procedure has been deviated.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

8.As such, I do not find any deviation in the procedure contemplated as per the terms and conditions of the tender

¶24

¶25

schedule. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P(MD)No.5247 of 2018 is also dismissed. Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The District Collector,

¶30

Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶31

1 cc TO Mr.B.Saravanan , Advocate in SR No. 61974

¶32

Sms

¶33

AE/RSK/SAR1/10.07.2018/3P/3C

¶34

Writ Petition (MD) No.5262 of 2018 ánd W.M.P(MD)No.5247 of 2018 16.04.2018

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Kumaran, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kumaran, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Amsha Vs the Inspector General of

A.Kanagaraj, Vs the Tamil Nadu State

K.Mutharasu Vs the District Collector

M.Vanthidevan, S/O.S.Marriappa Vs the District Collector

Vellai Vs the District Revenue Officer

V.Sangeetha Vs the Tahsildar