A Municipality's Resolution to allot shops to certain individuals without conducting a fresh tender-cum-auction is illegal and invalid if it is not in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and if the Municipality has not conducted a fresh tender-cum-auction as directed by the Court in an earlier order.

1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records relating to the Impugned Resolution No.2 dated 10/10/2014 passed by the Third Respondent and the consequential impugned orders of allotment of the Second Respondent in favour of the Respondents 4 to 11 vide common order bearing Na.Ka.No.2425/2010/A1 dated 10/10/2014 and to quash the same. Further, the Petitioner has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondent authorities to issue re-tender as per common order dated 31/1/2011 in W.P.(MD) Nos.13584 and 13042 of 2010.

2. THE SUMMATION OF FACTS:-According to the Petitioner, earlier, the Second Respondent issued a Notification dated 28/9/2010 published in 'Tamil Sudar' on 12/10/2010 calling for the Tender-cum-Auction to be held on 21/10/2010 for grant of licence to carry on business in eight newly constructed shops by the Municipality in Devakottai Bus Stand. The Earnest Money Deposit for each shop was Rs.1.00 lakh and the solvency required for each shop was Rs.2.00 lakhs. In the absence of the Solvency Certificate, the additional deposit was at Rs.1.00 lakh for each shop. The sealed tenders were to be received between 11.00 a.m., and 11.30 a.m., on 21/10/2010 and the auction was to be conducted at 11.40 a.m., on 21/10/2010.

3. In the Tender Notification it was mentioned that those who had made the Earnest Money Deposit and obtained due endorsement on 20/10/2010 would be considered and those sealed Tenders would be opened at 11.40 a.m., on 21/10/2010. The intending participants/applicants took Demand Drafts for Rs.2.00 lakhs for each shop and with necessary solvency certificate were waiting at the Second Respondent/Municipality on 20/10/2010. However, the Second Respondent nor his authorised representative was available on 20/10/2010 till 06.00 p.m., to receive the tenders from the public as per the Tender Notification dated 28/9/2010. In the absence of the Second Respondent, no application for tender was received from any public. Hence there was utter chaos. The matter was reported to the First Respondent and at his instance, the Tahsildar with the Police 'Bandobust' visited the office of the Second Respondent in the evening of 20/10/2010. After due enquiry, a report was submitted to the First Respondent to the effect that there was no one in the office of the Second Respondent to receive the tender.

4. On the next date, i.e., on 21/10/2010, a large number of public gathered in the Office of the Second Respondent. The Second Respondent was then present did not respond to any query posed to him. But the Third Respondent, hastily issued a notice on 21/10/2010 to the Members of the Ward Councillors stating that a special Meeting is to be convened on 22/10/2010 to pass a Resolution to confirm the alleged Tender for eight shops said to have been held on 21/10/2010. However, due to the protest made by the intending Tenderers, the Second Respondent informed him in writing that the Meeting scheduled on 22/10/2010 pertaining to the Resolution Nos.116 to 124 including the said Tender Notification was postponed.

5. In the meanwhile, one Kasilingam filed W.P.(MD) No.13042 of 2010 challenging the Notice dated 21/10/2010 seeking to confirm the 'tender' for eight shops before this Court. This Court was pleased to grant an order of interim stay of confirming the results of the Tender-cum-Auction said to have been held on 21/10/2010, if it was not confirmed till 1.15 p.m., on 22/10/2010 regarding the allotment of aforesaid eight shops. The said order was communicated through wire order. But the records were created as if the Resolution was passed on 22/10/2010 and shops were allotted to the Respondents 4 to 11. Aggrieved by the same, the very same Kasilingam filed another Writ Petition (MD) No.13584 of 2010 on the file of this Court. This Court by a common order dated 31/1/2011 was pleased to direct the Second Respondent to conduct fresh Tender-cum-Aucti