BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.07.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY A.S.(MD)No.120 of 2022 R.S.Mani ...Appellant Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Tirukovil, Madurai – 1.

2.The Thakkar/Trustee, Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Tirukovil, Madurai – 1.

3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

4.The District Collector, Madurai. ...Respondents PRAYER: This Appeal Suit filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional District Judge, Madurai, dated 23.06.2017, in O.S.No.108 of 2011.

For Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam For R1& R2 : Mr.S.Manohar For R3 & R4 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate

JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by appellant who was the successful bidder to run prasadha stall against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.108 of 2011 by the I Additional District Court, Madurai. The plaintiff is the appellant herein and the defendants are the respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants as per the ranking in the suit.

2. The plaintiff is the contractor for running prasadha stall in Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarer Thirukoil for the pasali 1413. The plaintiff had participated in the tender proceedings. Initially, the tender for running the stall the upset price was fixed as Rs.45,00,000/-. However, since there were no bidders, the temple has reduced the amount to Rs.31,75,000/- and in spite of the same there were no bidders. Further the temple authorities had reduced the amount to Rs.23,70,000/- and then also there were no bidders. Finally, the upset price was fixed at Rs.21,51,000/- for the pasali 1414 and tender process was conducted on 12.05.2004 and there were no bidders even for Rs.21,51,000/-. 3. Hence, the persons participated in the tender process put forth three demands like the temple should permit the successful bidder for selling extra items, for putting up one more stall and to increase the price of the items. If these conditions are fulfilled, the contractors expressed their willingness to take the stall for Rs.30,00,000/-. There was a promise by the temple authorities that the said conditions may be accepted, but the same would be subject to the approval from the Commissioner of HR&CE. Therefore, the contractors accepted the tender process and finally for pasali 1414, the stall was sold for Rs.32,00,000/-. The temple authorities also submitted the proposal to the Commissioner of HR&CE.

However, the Commissioner declined the same and rejected the proposal.

4. The plaintiff was aggrieved by the rejection since the rejection is against the promise. Hence, he had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9265 of 2005 and the same was dismissed, vide order, dated 15.03.2006, since there is an alternative remedy before the Commissioner. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred a revision petition in the year 2006 before the Commissioner. After hearing the revision, the Commissioner had dismissed the same in the year 2011 and directed the plaintiff to file a civil suit. Hence, the plaintiff preferred a civil suit in O.S.No.108 of 2011. After considering the evidences, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved over the same, the present Appeal Suit is preferred before this Court.

5. The points for consideration are as follows:

a. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

b. Whether there is any contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to increase the amount, to open more stalls, to sell more items?

c. whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief under the principle of promissory estoppel?

6. The preliminary contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants is that the suit itself is barred by limitation since the impugned tender was conducted for the pasali 1414, i.e., in the year 2004-2005 and the suit is filed in the yea