SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Mad) 1779

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN
M.Sathyanathan - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector & Another - Respondents
W.P.No.37608 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.40317 of 2005
Decided On : 22 November 2005

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:R. Sugumaran, Advocate. For the Respondent: R. Vijayakumar, G.A.

Court can only direct authority to exercise discretion according to law and not in a particular manner.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Rules (1959), Rules 8(7), 8(6)(b) - Auction - Fresh tenders - Court can only direct authority to exercise discretion according to law and not in a particular manner - Power conferred on Collector is discretionary - Under guise of purposive interpretation Courts cannot re-write statute.

       

Judgment :-

(PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.)

The question that arises in this writ petition is,

“Whether it is obligatory on the part of the District Collector to grant lease in favour of the petitioner being the second highest bidder when the first highest bidder fails to perform his part of contract in terms of Rule 8(7) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, without resorting to calling for fresh tenders?”

2. The petitioner, having considerable experience in the field of stone quarrying, participated in the tender-cum-auction process called for by the respondents, in respect of the stone quarry No.2 in S.No.139 in Thalakkanancheri village, Tambaram taluk. In the said auction, one Mrs.Prabavathy Durairaj was the highest bidder and the petitioner was the second highest bidder. Since the said Mrs.Prabavathy Durairaj has not paid the remaining 90% of the bid amount within the stipulated period, her bid was impliedly cancelled automatically as per the terms of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (for short, “the Rules”). Therefore, the petitioner, being the second highest bidder, made a representation-dated 18.08.2004, before the first respondent, requesting to accept his bid and execute the lease deed in his favour. However, the first respondent issued a Notification dated 2.11.2005 calling for fresh tenders in respect of the impugned stone quarry, which is challenged in the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the said Notification in so far as it relates to issuance of lease in respect of the impugned stone quarry and to direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.08.2004 in accordance with law.

3. Mr. R. Sugumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the impugned Notification on the following two grounds:-

i) The District Collector ought to have granted the lease in favour of the petitioner being the second highest bidder, since the highest bidder has not pursued the lease by paying the balance bid amount.

ii) The District Collector erred in calling for fresh tenders, without disposing the petitioner’s representation seeking to confirm the bid in his favour.

4. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader taking notice on behalf of the respondents justified the action of the District Collector in issuing the impugned notification. According to him, the confirmation of the second highest bid is not automatic in view of Rule 8(6)(b) of the Rules.

5. Before going into the question involved in the writ petition it is profitable to refer to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which are relevant for the purpose of this case.

“8(6)(a). Where only one tender application is received for an area, if there is no one to bid in the auction, the District Collector may grant the lease in favour of the single applicant if in his opinion the annual tender amount offered by the applicant is reasonable in the circumstances of the case and the grant of the lease to the applicant will be in the interests of mineral development. If the District Collector is not satisfied in the above aspects, he may reject the application communicating the reasons therefore in writing to the applicant and issue fresh notification in the District Gazette calling for re-tender applications for the area concerned.

(b) Where two or more applications, are received for an area, the District Collector shall, ordinarily, grant the quarrying lease to the applicant who is declared as the offerer of the highest bid amount or highest tender amount whichever is greater;

Provided that where the District Collector is satisfied that the highest bid amount or tender amount fetched for an area is not reasonable in the circumstances of the case, it is open to the Collector to reject the said offer and refuse to accept t












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top