The jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal under Article 661 of the "Reforma Administrativa Ultramarina" is exclusive for challenges to public auctions held by municipalities.

JUDGMENT:- The order in appeal challenged in this proceeding is the order of the District Judge, Panaji dated August 20, 1975. By the said order the learned Judge allowed the first appeal filed against the decree of the original Court given in favour of the plaintiff, the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff Chandrasen Ramnath Raikar filed a suit against the respondent, the Marmagoa Municipal Council for obtaining a declaration that a certain public auction held by the Municipality Vasco da Gama, on June 10, 1965 is null and void ab initio and for a decree and order of the Court directing and ordering the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 5,000/- together with interest thereon. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree and order directing the Municipality to refund and pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 5,000/- together with interest thereon. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. In appeal the District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the suit on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. It is argued by Shri Kakodkar learned Advocate for the plaintiff that the present suit is a suit for obtaining a refund of the sum of Rs. 5,000/-paid to the Municipality under a mistake. It is contended by Shri Kakodkar that the plaintiff was under the impression that the action was for the period of one year only and not for nine months; that the two contesting parties viz., the plaintiff and the defendants were not ad idem as to the period for which the contract was to last and that therefore there was no contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. Now, the contract about which the parties are said to be of divergent mind is the contract whereby the right to collect Municipal fees in the Market was to be given. No step whatsoever is taken regarding that contract. The deposit of Rs. 5,000/- was not made under that contract. That contract which is still to be entered into is not at all the subject-matter of the suit. The subject-matter of the suit is the public auction.

4. The defendants are the owners of the Vasco da Gama Municipal Market. On April 22, 1965 the defendant published a notice in the local newspaper announcing the auction of the right to collect fees from users of the market for the year 1965-66. As the plaintiff wanted to participate in the said auction he deposited on June 10, 1965 the sum of Rs. 5,000/- in terms of the second paragraph of the notice. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he was given to understand by the office of the defendants that the lease was for the period of one year. The auction did not take place on May 13, as scheduled. By notice No. 4 of April 30, 1965 the defendants postponed the auction without changing its terms and conditions. The auction finally took place on June 10, 1965. The plaintiff offered the highest bid of Rs. 1,09,500/-. The second highest Rs. 1,09,000/- was offered by one Sitaram Pandit. It is alleged by the plaintiff that soon after the auction was over the Secretary of the defendants brought to the notice of the bidders concerned that the lease was to be not for the Period of one year, as had been given to understand, but for a period of nine months; that as a result of the said mistake of fact the plaintiff as well as Sitaram Pandit refused to sign the contract and insisted that the contract could be only for one year as per the representations made by the defendants and which preceded the auction; that thereafter, by their notice No. 7 dated June 19, 1965 the defendants again announced that a new auction would be held on July 15, 1965 for giving away the right of collection of the Municipal fees for the use of the market for the period from August 1965 to March 1966; therefore, the petitioner states, the auction held on June 10, 1965 is bad in law and void ab initio.

5. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the said auction held on June 10, 1965 was null and void.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document