The court ruled that failure to publish tender notices in widely circulated newspapers violates statutory requirements, necessitating a fresh auction process.

JUDGMENT :

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN.,J)

The Writ Appeal filed by the private respondent is W.A(MD)No.408 of 2019 and the Writ Appeal filed by the Society is W.A(MD)No.536 of 2019.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The private respondent/first respondent herein filed the Writ Petition and the Writ Court considered the fact and held that call for tender has not been done property and therefore disposed of the Writ Petition with certain directions, which reads as follows:

“10...............................

(i) The second respondent is directed to hold fresh auction on 29.3.2018 at 3.00 p.m. in his office. On the said date, the Petitioner and the sixth respondent/Amaranathan alone will be the participants. The sixth respondent can be called upon to match the offer made by the Writ Petitioner.

(ii) If the sixth respondent is not willing to match the Writ Petitioner’s offer, the second respondent is directed to issue proceedings for cancelling the impugned tender process that culminated in favour of the sixth respondent. The amount of Rs.14,50,000/- offered by the Writ Petitioner shall be accepted by the respondent/society and a deed of sale shall be executed in favour of the Writ Petitioner.

(iii)The jurisdictional Sub Registrar shall make an entry regarding the cancellation of the sale transaction in favour of the sixth respondent. Out of the consideration remitted by the Writ Petitioner, the society will refund the sixth respondent the sale consideration in full together with the expenses incurred by him inclusive of interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(iv)If the sixth respondent is willing to match the Petitioner’s offer, then there will be a bid between the two and whoever is the highest bidder will be declared as the purchaser.

(v)If the sixth respondent is the highest bidder, the sixth respondent will be called upon to pay the difference amount and there is no need to execute any fresh deed of sale.

(vi)If as a result of the bid in between the sixth respondent and the Writ Petitioner, a higher amount is realized, the course of auction indicated above shall be followed.

11.I am convinced that even though the case of the Writ Petitioner is accepted, the sixth respondent would not suffer actual loss. The society would have also gained substantially. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

Challenging the said order of the Writ Court, now the auction purchaser has filed W.A(MD)No.408 of 2019 and the society has filed W.A(MD)No.536 of 2019.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in W.A(MD)No.408 of 2019 is that the tender in question was called for wherein, the appellant is the only bidder in the said tender and he has immediately deposited the bid amount and the particulars with regard to tender process reads as under:

5. From the above table, it is seen that the bid was opened on 29.1.2018 and the appellant is the only bidder and he deposited 25% of the bid amount immediately and subsequently he deposited the balance amount on 30.1.2018.The sale was confirmed and property was enjoyed by the appellant and now he has executed a settlement deed in favour of his son and his son is enjoying the property. He would further submit that the Writ Petitioner/first respondent never participated in the tender process and he has no locus standi to challenge the tender. The Writ Court failed to consider the fact that the Writ Petition