Madras High CourtWP(MD)/2038/2017disposed of

Mr.A.K.D. Devaraj, v. The Commissioner,

2017-07-31Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.07.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.(MD)No.2038 of 2017 Mr.A.K.D.Devaraj ... Petitioner Vs.

The Commissioner, Kovilpatti Municipality, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to pass order confirming the Auction held on 28.01.2016 for Shop No.7 and 9, situated on East Side, First Floor, Anna Bus Stand, Kovilpatti, within stipulated time, on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner dated 29.12.2016, to the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah Government Advocate ***

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to confirm the Auction held on 28.01.2016, for Shop Nos.7 and 9, situated on East Side, First Floor, Anna Bus Stand, Kovilpatti, based on the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 29.12.2016.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent conducted tender cum public auction on 28.01.2016, for licensing shops at the newly constructed Anna Bus Stand, in Kovilpatti, vide Resolution No.2083 dated 08.01.2016. According to the petitioner, he was the successful bidder, in the said auction, in respect of Shop Nos. 7 and 9, situated at East Side, First Floor, Anna Bus Stand, Kovilpatti. But the respondent, without passing any orders confirming the auction result, returned the Demand Drafts paid by the petitioner to him. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent on 29.12.2016. As the same has been kept unattended without any action, the petitioner is before this Court, with the aforesaid prayer.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it

would be suffice, if the representation of the petitioner dated 29.12.2016, is disposed of by the respondent, in accordance with law.

5. Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for, this Court, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, directs the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.12.2016 and pass appropriate orders on its own merit and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Commissioner, Kovilpatti Municipality, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

+1cc to Mr.B.RAJESH SARAVANAN Advocate in SR. No.69412 GK JS/GT/SAR.1/10.08.2017/2P-3C W.P.(MD)No.2038 of 2017 31.07.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/