HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WP No. 6760 of 2026 and WMP.No. 7330 of 2026 N.Sundar ..Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector VOC Nagar, Kallkurichi 606 202 2. The Assistant Director
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WP No. 6760 of 2026 and WMP.No. 7330 of 2026
N.Sundar
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector
VOC Nagar, Kallkurichi 606 202
2. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Cuddalore Zone, Cuddalore
3. The Executive officer
Chinnasalem Special Grade Town Panchayat, Kallkurichi District
4. R.Manivannan,
5. K.Ambaayiram,
6. K.Aravindh,
(R4 to R6 are impleaded vide order of this
Court dated 26.02.206)
..Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records connected with the proceedings issued in Na.Ka No 5/ 2026 / A2 dated 02.02.2026 passed by the 3rd Respondent (Three proceedings for shop Nos. 4, 5 and 29) and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in Tender for the Shop. Nos. 4, 5 (AP AMT) and Shop.
No 29 FIDCO) and pass orders.
For Petitioner: Mr. S.Illamvaludhi
For Respondents: Mr. M. Sivavarthanan, Govt. Counsel –
R1 to R3
Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan
Assisted by Mr. V.Gunasekar – R4 to R6
ORDER
The third respondent had invited bids through a public auction for leasing shops in the TUPIDCO Commercial Complex for a period of three years. The last date for submitting bids was 29.01.2026. The bids were opened on 30.01.2026, and respondents 4 to 6 emerged as the highest bidders and were allotted the respective shops. The petitioner claims that he approached the third respondent on 29.01.2026 to submit his bid, but he was prevented from doing so.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
3. The State has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner came tothe office of respondents 3 and 4 at 5.05 p.m. on 29.01.2026, claiming that he had brought the demand drafts and insisted that the Head Clerk receive them as his bid. Since the last time for submission of bids was 4.00 p.m., the Head Clerk informed him that the bid could not be accepted. According to the State, this incident was recorded on the CCTV cameras installed in the third respondent’s office. It is further stated that all bids received before 4.00 p.m. on 29.01.2026 were opened on 30.01.2026, and the shops were allotted to the highest bidders.
4. The highest bid for Shop No.29 was Rs.2,350/- per month, while the highest bids for Shop Nos.4 and 5 were Rs.12,000/- per month each. Thereafter, on 02.02.2026, the petitioner requested the third respondent to conduct a reauction under Clause 13 of the auction notice. Based on that request, the third respondent issued the impugned communication directing the petitioner to pay the differential amount required for a re-auction. However, instead of paying the amount, the petitioner challenged the communication before this Court, indicating that he was not genuinely interested in a re-auction.
5. If the petitioner had genuinely wanted a re-auction, he would have deposited the amount required under the impugned communication. His failure to do so shows that he was not interested in obtaining the shops through a reauction. Moreover, the successful bidders have already been put in possession of the shops, and the allotments in their favour have been confirmed.
6. In these circumstances, the petitioner has not made out any case eitherfor allotment of the shops in his favour or for directing a re-auction. Although the petitioner claims that he paid the differential amount of Rs.36,720/-, paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit states that he was required to pay the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), the highest bid amount, 10% enhancement, and 12 months’ advance rent. The petitioner paid only the 10% enhancement and failed to comply with the other requirements mentioned in the impugned communication.
Therefore, he is not entitled to seek allotment of the shops or a direction for reauction.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The Executive Officer/3rd respondent is directed to hand over possession of the respective shops to the successful bidders, namely respondents 4 to 6. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
20-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ak
To
1. The District Collector
VOC Nagar, Kallkurichi 606 202
2. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Cuddalore Zone, Cuddalore
3. The Executive officer
Chinnasalem Special Grade Town Panchayat,
Kallkurichi District HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
ak WP No. 6760 of 2026
20-07-2026
