Petitioner sought mandamus to confirm a municipal shop auction in which she bid Rs.20,100 while another bidder's power agent erroneously bid Rs.16,100 against instructions of Rs.20,000. Balancing interests of two disabled bidders, the court directed a fresh inter-se auction between them on 08.09.2025.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.08.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD)No.23478 of 2025 and
W.M.P(MD)No.18450 of 2025
Priyadarshini
...Petitioner
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration And Water Supply Department, St. Fort George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai - 600 028.
3.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Commissioner, Ramanathapuram Municipality Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
5.The Revenue Inspector, Ramanathapuram Municipality Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
...Respondents
1/7
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus , directing the 4th respondent to confirm the auction conducted on 20.08.2025 with respect of shop No.89, situated in Ramanathapuram bus stand and declare the petitioner as successful bidder and subsequently direct the 4th respondent to enter into contract with the petitioner.
For Petitioner : M/s.T.Sreelekha
For Respondents : Mr.D.Ghandiraj Special Government Pleader for R1 & R3 Mr.K.Saravanan Standing Counsel for R2,R4 & R5
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Special Government Pleader for R1 & R3 and Mr.K.Saravanan, learned Standing Counsel for R2, R4 & R5.
2.The petitioner is before this Court for the second time. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P(MD)No.22755 of 2025, which came to be disposed of by a common order dated 19.08.2025, along with other W.P.(MD)No.22637 of 2025.
3.In the said Writ Petition, the petitioners therein including the petitioner herein had challenged the auction notification dated 01.08.2025, and to quash the same.
2/7
4.By an order dated 19.08.2025, since no priority was given to the person with disability in terms of the Rule 316 (11)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023. Thereafter, the auction was actually held on 20.08.2025, in respect of the shop No.89. The present dispute pertains to Shop No.89. The learned Counsel for the respondents has confirmed that about 23 participated bidder offered their bid in response to tender notification dated 01.08.2025, which included the petitioner herein and one Mohammed Ali. The highest bid from the non-discriminatory category was Rs.16,100/-.
5.It is the submission of the respondents that the said Mohammed Ali was represented by his power of attorney who by mistake accepted the highest by bid of Rs.16,100/-, whereas the said Mohammed Ali was agreeable to a sum of Rs.20,000/-. It is the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner on the other hand had offered a bid for Rs.20,100/-
6.It is also submitted that the entire auction proceedings were also videographed and therefore, the petitioner is legitimately entitled for confirmation of the auction conducted on 20.08.2025.
3/7
7.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has
produced a copy of the communication exchange between the fourth respondent to the learned Standing Counsel, whereas it has been stated as under:-
4/7
8.Having considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, this Court is inclined to balance the interest of the petitioner and Mohammed Ali who also participated as the persons with disability. The respondents are directed to hold a fresh auction for the shop No.89, between the petitioner and the said Mohammed Ali and between them whoever offers the highest amount, confirmation shall be made in their favour. The date of inter-se auction between the petitioner and Mohammed Ali shall be held on 08.09.2025 at 3.00 p.m. in the same venue. The respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and the said Mohammed Ali.
9.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
29.08.2025
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR
6/7
C.SARAVANAN, J.
RJR
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration And Water Supply Department, St. Fort George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai - 600 028.
3.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Commissioner, Ramanathapuram Municipality Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
5.The Revenue Inspector, Ramanathapuram Municipality Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
W.P.(MD)No.23478 of 2025
29.08.2025
7/7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of the auction of Shop No.89 conducted on 20.08.2025 as successful bidder.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Priyadarshini
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
The Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration
The District Collector, Ramanathapuram
The Commissioner, Ramanathapuram Municipality
The Revenue Inspector, Ramanathapuram Municipality
C.Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
