AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.A. Swami, C.J.—This writ appeal is preferred against the Order dated 30th August, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.
No. 15680 of 1993. As the writ petition has been dismissed, the petitioner has come up in the writ appeal. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought
for quashing the proceedings bearing R.C. No. 14/48884 dated 19/8/1993 in respect of shop No. 7, Kottaipattinam Village Panchayat and to
further direct respondents 1 to 3 to declare that the petitioner is the auction purchaser in respect of IMFL Shop No. 7 in Kottaipattinam Village
Panchayat on the strength of the bid amount of Rs.5,08,00/- offered by him and grant licence to him under R.13 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail
Vending) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).
Learned single Judge has held that the highest bidder Selvam had promised to come back with the requisite money, but be did not return. The
other two persons, viz., M. Muthuvel and T. Veeriah left the auction hall and they were not to be seen. Therefore, the only person who had offered
the next highest Did, available was R.S. Natarajan (the 4th respondent). Therefore, the 2nd respondent accepted the bid offered by the 4th
respondent and finalised the auction sale, forfeited the earnest money deposited by the other three bidders. Therefore, it has been held by the
learned single Judge that Rr.5 to 11 of the Rules have not been violated. Accordingly, learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
It is contended before us that as per R.10 of the Rules, on the failure of the deposit of the balance of the amount by the highest bidder, the 2nd
respondent ought to nave forfeited the earnest money deposit of the highest bidder, viz., Selvam and should have declared the petitioner who had
offered the next highest bid, as auction purchaser and called upon him to pay the balance of the amount, that as the Sale Officer, viz., the 2nd
respondent had failed to follow the procedure established under R.10 of the Rules, the auction sale finalised in favour of the 4th respondent who
was the 4th highest bidder, is illegal and is liable to be quashed.
Respondent No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit and has also produced the records. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader, on the
basis of the records, that no doubt, Selvam was the highest bidder, but, he failed to deposit the balance or the amount, as he did not return, after
he went out of the auction hall for bringing the money. Similarly, the petitioner and Veeriah left the hall and were not available at the time when the
auction was to be Finalised, after Selvam failed to return with the balance of the bid amount. Therefore, the only way left to the 2nd respondent is
to finalise the auction sale in favour of the 4th respondent. It is also contended that prior to the auction sale in question, several times, the auction
sale was conducted, but the time did not fructify. It is also the contention of the learned Government Pleader that as per counter-affidavit sworn to
by the 2nd respondent, the first three highest bidders are no other than the employees of the person, in whose favour the auction has been finalised
in respect of shop No. 8 in the same Panchayat area and he does not want another person to become his competitor on taking the shop No. 7 for
vending liquor.
The second contention is supported by the counter- affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent. However, for our purpose, it is not necessary to
go into the second contention, R.10 of the Rules reads thus:
Remittance of privilege amount by auction purchaser:- (1) The auction purchaser shall immediately on such declaration, remit the privilege
amount in one lump sum. If he fails to remit the privilege amount, his Earnest Money Deposit shall be forfeited and the next highest bidder or
highest tenderer, as the case may be, shall be declared as auction purchaser by the Sale Officer.
(2) All remittances shall be in cash or by a Demand Draft drawn on the State Bank of India or a Nationalised Bank in favour of Collector or partly
by cash and partly by Demand Draft.
(3) The privilege amount once remitted shall, on no account, be refunded except in a case referred to in sub-rule(2) of rule 11.
As per the aforesaid Rule, the highest auction purchaser shall have to, immediately on being declared as such, remit the privilege amount in one
lump sum. That Selvam failed to remit, because after he went out of the halt with permission of the Sale Officer to bring the privilege amount, he
failed to return. Consequently, the 2nd respondent was entitled to forfeit his earnest money deposit. As per R.10, the next highest bidder, the
petitioner was entitled to be declared as auction-purchaser. That the Sale Officer could have done so provided the petitioner was present. As per
the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, neither the petitioner was present, nor Veeriah who was the third highest bidder was present. Therefore, he
had no option, but, to declare the 4th respondent as the auction-purchaser. The proceedings drawn by the 2nd respondent on the spot are in
Tamil, a true translation of the same is furnished to us by the learned Government Pleader, the correctness of which is not disputed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, are as follows:-
IMFL Shops Retail Vending For the Period 1993-94.
R. Selvam and Muthuvel did not make the deposit even though they were given sufficient time. They left stating that they would come back with
amounts; but they did not come back. Hence, the sum of Rs.7,500/- paid as security deposit is forfeited. T. Veeriah, who offered Rs.5,07,000/- is
not available and he has disappeared. His security deposit of Rs.7,500/- is forfeited to-the Government. Finally, Mr. R.S. Natarajan is ready to
pay Rs.5,06,000/- and the auction is confirmed in his favour. Rs.5,06,000/- has been received.
From the aforesaid proceedings, it is clear that the 2nd respondent has followed R.10 of the Rules strictly. The contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that when Selvam who had offered the highest bid and who was declared as the auction-purchaser, failed to return, the
petitioner was in the precincts of the place, where the auction was held, therefore he should have been declared as the auction-purchaser. We are
of the view that the proceedings recorded do not lend support to the contention. There was no reason whatsoever for the 2nd respondent to
ignore the presence of the petitioner, if he were present at that time and not to declare the petitioner as the highest bidder. There are no allegations
of mala fides made, against the 2nd respondent. In the absence of allegations of mala fides, the official acts must be presumed to have been done in
the manner expected. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no reason whatsoever to discredit the recording made by the 2nd respondent at
the spot, when the auction was conducted. No doubt, if the petitioner were present, he could have been declared as the auction-purchaser. In the
absence of the bidders, who had offered the second and third highest bids, there was no necessity to declare that they were the auction-
purchasers. Therefore, the 2nd respondent only recorded their absence and forfeited their earnest money deposit and declared the 4th highest
bidder who was present and available, as the auction-purchaser and he deposited the privilege amount immediately. Therefore, we are of the view
that R.10 of the Rules is not violated in any manner. It is contended that there is variation between the averments made in the counter-affidavit and
the recording made by the 2nd respondent about the auction proceedings. The variation, if any, does not affect the substance of the matter,
inasmuch as the effect of the averments made in the counter-affidavit and the proceedings recorded by him is the same inasmuch as at the relevant
point of time, the second and third highest bidders were not present, as they went out of the halt, after the highest bidder, viz., Selvam went out of
the hall to bring the privilege amount. The absence of all the three, viz., the first, second and third highest bidders could also lend support to the
averment made by the 2nd respondent that they are no other than the henchmen of the auction purchaser of shop No. 8 in the same Panchayat
area. Whatever it may be, in view of the conclusion reached by us on the first contention, we do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly,
learned single Judge is justified in rejecting the same. Hence, the appeal is rejected. No order as to costs.