Allowed

S.Thangadurai, v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC28 Nov 2023WP/31833/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed to quash a gazette notification regarding an open auction of company property due to alleged incorrect market value. The single-judge bench directed the Competent Authority to fix the correct upset price and proceed with auction proceedings if not already disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The Competent Authority is directed to fix the upset price for the property and proceed with the auction proceedings if not already sold out.

S.Thangadurai, Vs The Secretary to Government — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.31833 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.31833 of 2022 and WMP.Nos.31293 & 31294 of 2022

¶7

S.Thangadurai

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 2.The Competent Authority/ District Revenue Officer, Salem District 3.State Represented by Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing-II, Salem District ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER :

¶11

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the publication published in Salem District Gazette dated 16.11.2022 publication No.65 issued by the second respondent of selling the petitioner company immovable property for sale from item No.1 to 7 of open auction on 29.11.2022 and direct the second

¶12

respondent to re-fix the present market value of the immovable property and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 4

¶13

W.P.No.31833 of 2022

¶14

bring the property for sale after completing this Court's direction in

¶15

Crl.OP.No.29653 of 2013 and Crl.OP.No.24528 of 2022.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ravichandran

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(crl.side)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed to quash the publication published

¶20

in Salem District Gazette dated 16.11.2022 publication No.65 issued by the second respondent of selling the petitioner company immovable property for sale from item No.1 to 7 of open auction on 29.11.2022 and to direct the second respondent to re-fix the present market value of the immovable property and to bring the property for sale after completing this Court's direction in Crl.OP.No.29653 of 2013 and Crl.OP.No.24528 of 2022.

¶21

On perusal of the impugned Government Gazettee publication dated 16.11.2022, auction was fixed on 29.11.2022. However, on that day, there was no auction conducted by the second respondent. Only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent concerned did not fix the correct market value and failed to mention the correct value of the property in the auction notice.

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Page 2 of 4

W.P.No.31833 of 2022

Considering the above grievance of the petitioner, the second

¶27

respondent is directed to fix the upset price for the property which is proposed for auction and proceed with the auction proceedings, if not already sold out.

¶28

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

28.11.2023

¶31

Index :Yes/No (½) Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order lok

¶32

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 4

W.P.No.31833 of 2022

lok

1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 2.The Competent Authority/ District Revenue Officer, Salem District 3.Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing-II, Salem District 4.The Government Advocate High Court of Madras

¶38

W.P.No.31833 of 2022

¶39

28.11.2023

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 4

S.Thangadurai, v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Thangadurai, v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Vs State Rep by

T.R.Nandakumar Vs a.Chidambaram

S.Selvaraj Vs State Rep by

M.Ambika Vs The Superintendent of Police

S.Menaka Vs State by

Sabrina, Aged 42 Years Vs M/S.Atlantic Leather Exports