Madras High CourtWP(MD)/588/2020disposed of

Ammasikani v. The Director

2020-01-10Honourable Mrs Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana2 pages

W.P(MD)No.588 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:10.01.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA W.P(MD)No.588 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD)No.434 of 2020 Ammasikani ... Petitioner .Vs.

1.The Director, TASMAC, Office of the Director of TASMAC, CMDA Tower, Egmore, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Regional Manager, TASMAC, Office of the Regional Manager, Anna Nagar, Madurai.

4.The District Manager, TASMAC, Office of the TASMAC District Manager, 29.34 SIDCO Campus, Soolakarai, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to reduce the minimum upset price from 1.40% to 0.40% or any reasonable reduction in minimum upset price for conduct the Bar attached in TASMAC shop No.11941, which is situating in No.342 North Devadhanam, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District within the time stipulated by this Court, by considering the representation dated 10.12.2019 submitted by the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For R-1, R-3 & R-4 : Mr.H.Arumugam For R-2 : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P(MD)No.588 of 2020

ORDER

Mr.H.Arumugam, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the second respondent.

2. The prayer in this writ petition is to reduce the upset price from 1.40% to 0.40% for conduct of the Bar attached in TASMAC shop No.11941, which is situated in Door No.342 North Devadhanam, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District, by considering the representation dated 10.12.2019 submitted by the petitioner.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner was the highest bidder and offered 1.41 % as upset price and it is also stated by the learned standing counsel for the respondents Tasmac that the business of conducting bar is for three months. Subsequently, the petitioner has come up with the said request by sending the representation, dated 10.12.2019. The learned counsel produces the order passed by the District Manager ie., the fourth respondent addressed to the first respondent, dated 18.12.2019 and in which, the representation of the petitioner dated 10.12.2019 was considered and rejected.

4. Therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous and it is open to the petitioner to challenge the said order, which is communicated to him independently.

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (records) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) Pm To:

The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Virudhunagar District.

+1 CC to M/s.R.ALAGUMANI, Advocate ( SR-1553[F] dated 10/01/2020 ) +1 CC to Mr.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-1602[F] dated 13/01/2020 ) +1 CC to SPL.GP ( SR-1944[F] dated 20/01/2020 ) W.P(MD)No.588 of 2020 10.01.2020 MK (06.02.2020) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2