Allowed

S.Nithin v. The Thanjavur District Collector and

Madras HC11 Jun 2026WP(MD)/15650/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge to a fresh auction notice for collection of Aranthangi Weekly Market fees despite an auction-condition guaranteeing the successful bidder extension for two Fasali years on payment of 10% more. The court held the condition mandatory, found denial arbitrary as defeating legitimate expectation, set aside the notice and directed lease extension subject to enhanced payment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned auction notice dated 02.06.2026 set aside; first respondent directed to extend lease/licence for two Fasali years on payment of 10% enhanced amount; no costs.

S.Nithin Vs The Thanjavur District Collector and — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11-06-2026

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

WP(MD) No.15650 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)No.11736 of 2026

¶5

S.Nithin

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Vs. -

¶8

The Thanjavur District Collector and Administrator of Chattiram Charitable Trust, Collectorate, Thanjavur District.

¶9

The Commissioner, Aranthangi Municipality, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No. 326/2026/Sath/Ni/E dated 02.06.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to extend the license for collecting market fee of Aranthangi Weekly Market for next Fasali year 1436 (from 01.07.2026 to 30.06.2027) by receiving the enhanced amount of 10 percent from original outstanding lease amount.

¶12

________________ Page 1 of 6_

¶13

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

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Baalasundaram, Senior Counsel for M/s.KBS Law Office

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, Government Advocate for R1

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner challenges the public auction notice dated 02.06.2026 issued by the first respondent, whereby bids were invited from eligible persons for collection of market fees. The petitioner was the successful bidder in the previous auction conducted by the first respondent and was granted the collection rights for the period from 26.09.2025 to 30.06.2026.

¶18

The petitioner deposited the bid amount of Rs.36,10,000/-. One of

¶19

the conditions contained in the public auction notice dated 16.09.2025 stipulated that the successful bidder would be granted an extension of the lease/licence for the next two Fasali years on payment of 10% increase over the original lease amount. According to the petitioner, despite the existence of the said condition, the first respondent issued the impugned auction notice without extending the benefit of renewal, thereby defeating the

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

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

¶22

petitioner’s legitimate expectation of extension of the lease.

¶23

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submitted that extension of the lease is not a vested right. It was further contended that grant of extension would be discriminatory and, therefore, the petitioner cannot compel the first respondent to extend the lease period as a matter of right.

¶24

The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side have been duly considered.

¶25

5.A reading of the public auction notice dated 16.09.2025 shows that the condition therein stipulates that the successful bidder “will be granted” an extension of the lease/licence for the next two Fasali years on payment of 10% increase in the auction amount. The expression employed is mandatory in nature and not merely discretionary. In the present case, the petitioner has expressed willingness to continue the lease/licence for the next two Fasali years and has also agreed to pay the enhanced amount as

¶26

________________ Page 3 of 6_

¶27

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

¶28

stipulated. In such circumstances, the issuance of the impugned auction notice without first extending the benefit of renewal to the petitioner amounts to denial of the petitioner’s legitimate expectation and is arbitrary.

¶29

6.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned auction notice dated 02.06.2026 issued by the first respondent is set aside. The first respondent is directed to extend the lease/licence in favour of the petitioner for the next two Fasali years, subject to the petitioner paying the enhanced amount with 10% increase over the original auction amount, as determined by the first respondent. In the event the petitioner fails to pay the said amount, it shall be open to the first respondent to issue a fresh auction notice in accordance with law.

¶30

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

11-06-2026

¶32

Index :Yes / No Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No PJL

¶33

________________ Page 4 of 6_

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

The Thanjavur District Collector and Administrator of Chattiram Charitable Trust, Collectorate, Thanjavur District.

¶37

The Commissioner, Aranthangi Municipality, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶38

________________ Page 5 of 6_

¶39

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

¶40

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

¶41

PJL

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.15650 of 2026

¶43

11.06.2026

¶44

________________ Page 6 of 6_

¶45

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

S.Nithin v. The Thanjavur District Collector and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Nithin v. The Thanjavur District Collector and

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

Menaka K Vs The District Appellate Authority

Menaka K Vs The District Appellate Authority

Marimuthu Vs The District Collector cum The Chairman of Appellate Tribunal

S.Vigneswaran Vs Srinivasan

Sheik Ibrahim Vs The Commissioner of Corporation

Vincent John Vs The State of Tamil Nadu