IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.09.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.21247 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.23203 of 2024 S.Jayaprakash ... Petitioner -Vs-

1. Greater Chennai Corporation, (Parks And Play Field Department), Represented By Its Department Head, Ripon Building, Chennai - 600 003.

2. The Zonal Officer, Zone-9, Division – 110, Greater Chennai Corporation, Lake Area, Nungambakkam - 600 034. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the Respondents from disturbing the existing arrangements more specifically from disturbing the Petitioner from operating and maintaining the existing tennis courts (3 number) for two years at Nungambakkam Playground Lake area road, Division 110, Zone No.9 on a fixed revenue sharing model until the validity period that is upto

10.01.2026.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.J.Rishikesh For Respondents : Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed forbearing the Respondents from disturbing the existing arrangements more specifically from disturbing the Petitioner from operating and maintaining the existing tennis courts (3 number) for two years at Nungambakkam Playground Lake area road, Division 110, Zone No.9 on a fixed revenue sharing model until the validity period that is upto

10.01.2026.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner is a Tennis player. The Tennis Stadium was constructed in the year 1996 in order to cater several public in and around Nungambakkam Area and handed over to Sports Development Authority. There are three tennis courts. It facilitates several players of different age group and gender to play the sport. While being so, in the year 2018, the first respondent had entrusted the maintenance of all the tennis courts to one 'Mullai Malar'. However, it did not perform its part and thereafter, in the year 2023, the first respondent decided to give back the tennis courts to the actual users. However, the first respondent floated E-tenders for operation and maintenance of existing tennis courts in Nungambakkam Playground. As per the notification, the petitioner had submitted bids and others had also submitted their respective bids and the bid was opened on 11.01.2024.

4. The petitioner had quoted a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- as a bid amount and he is the highest bidder. However, no work order was issued in favour of the petitioner. Though the petitioner was directed to remit a sum of Rs.37,500/- per month to the respondents to maintain the ground, now the respondents intended to vacate the petitioner to propose fresh tender notification.

5. A perusal of the status report filed by the respondents revealed that though the petitioner was a highest bidder and called for negotiation on 12.01.2024, it was delayed due to code of conduct for election and the tender was not processed in time. Therefore, work order was not given to the petitioner and he is occupying the tennis courts illegally.

6. Once the petitioner was permitted to occupy the courts and accepted the rents, it assumes that the petitioner was ordered for contract. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2008 1 SCC 503 in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs Great Eastern Shipping Co.Ltd., wherein it was held as follows:-

“ 19. It is, no doubt, true that the general rule is that an offer is not accepted by mere silence on the part of the offeree, yet it does not mean that an acceptance always has to be given in so many words. Under certain circumstances, offeree's silence, coupled with his conduct, which takes the form of a positive act, may constitute an acceptance – an agreement sub silentio. Therefore, the terms of a contract between the parties can be proved not only by their words but also by their conduct.”

Therefore, the principle o