Salem edapady tender case justice Ananthvenkafesh dismissed wp ater hearing arguments of aag A.kumar

[8/5, 18:59] Sekarreporter 1: W.P 8805 of 2020 and 6630/2020
The writ petitioner Mr. P. Rathinam from Nathakattur
challenged the lease granted in favour of one S. Raja through
public auction dated 13.03.2020 with respect to collection of
Toll in the weekly shandy situated at Konganapuram Town
Panchayat at Edappady Taluk as Null and Void and asked to
grant lease for the current period to him stating that he was
prevented from participating the auction as FIR has been
registered for non bailable offence against him and further he
stated in the affidavit in earlier two occasions the petitioner
participated in the auction conducted by the respondent
dated 17/02/2020 and 27/02/2020 and he quoted highest bid
but that was not considered by the authorities and cancelled
the above said auction without any valid reasons.
Learned Additional Advocate General A. Kumar assisted by
E.Balamurugan Special Government Pleader appeared for the
state and pointed out that the petitioner was the successful
bidder for the last 3 consecutive years with the amount of
7,40,000, 7,77,000 & 8,15,850. Having said argued that the
petitioner is trying to portrait a Monopoly stand in getting this
bid on his own interest by alleging false averments in the writ
petition. The petitioner and other tenderer quoting very less
amount In the auction dated 17/02/2020 and 27/02/2020
than the previous year tender amount so the above said
auctions were cancelled by the authority and call for the fresh
tender and as per the direction of this Hon’ble court in W.p
6630/2020 all the rules and regulations were followed and
adequate police protection were provided to conduct the
[8/5, 18:59] Sekarreporter 1: auction in peaceful manner. All the tenderer was allowed to
participate in the tender and the entire tender process was
photographed and on the same day 13 tenderers were
participated including the 4
th respondent in W.p 8805/2020.
The 4
th respondent is the highest bidder hence, he was
awarded for the lease of one year and further the AAG argued
that the official has not given any complaint against the
petitioner or prevented the petitioner from participating in
the tender. Further the petitioner himself did not participated
in tender. The respondent is no way connection with FIR which
was registered against the petitioner. A criminal case was
registered by the Edapadi police station in crime no 149/2020
based on the complaint given by the petitioner neighbour and
case was registered under section 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) of SCST act
r/w 294b, 506 IPC.
After hearing the arguments from both sides, the Hon’ble
court dismissed the writ petition by citing 1994 (6) SCC 561

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME