CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 07 MAD CK 0213

M. Vellaichamy vs The District Collector, The Assistant Director (Panchayats) and A.S. Subramanian <BR>A.S. Subramaniam Vs The District Collector and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 19 July 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vinod K. Sharma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (MD) No''s. 6823 of 2005 and 1340 of 2006
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 339 words

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The prayer made in Writ Petition No. 6823 of 2005 is to quash the order of re auction of cutting of trees.

2.

The Assistant Director of Panchayats issued notice for auction to the trees standing in Ammapatti Village. The third Respondent was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 34,200/-(Rupees thirty four thousand and two hundred only) and A.Subramaniam, the Petitioner in W.P. No. 1340 of 2006 approached the Deputy Collector, with offer to pay double the auction amount in terms of the notice. Mr. A.Subramaniam also deposited the amount. The District Collector accordingly cancelled the auction and ordered its re-auction. No. fault can be found with the recommendation made by the Deputy collector, as the offer made by Mr. A.Subramaniam shows that the auction was not at the market value. The public property cannot be allowed to be wasted. Consequently, the Writ petition No. 6823 of 2005 is dismissed.

3.

In W.P. No. 1340 of 2006, the prayer made by the Petitioner is to direct the Deputy Collector/Respondent No. 3 to confirm the auction in favour of the Petitioner as he had deposited double the amount.

4.

This prayer cannot be accepted at this stage. Auction was held in 4.4.2005. By this time, the trees must have grown, and will fetch much more price. The Petitioner has not challenged the order of the Deputy Collector recommending re-auction of the tree with liberty to the Petitioner to participate in the re-auction.

5.

Once the re-auction is not challenged by the Petitioner, No. writ of Mandamus can be issued at this stage to confirm the auction in favour of the Petitioner. The amount deposited by the Petitioner is directed to be adjusted with interest at 6% p.a., in case, he is a successful bidder in re-auction. In case Petitioner is unsuccessful the amount deposited be refunded to him, immediately after the re-auction, in any case, not later than one month of the re-auction.

6.

With these observations, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No. costs.