Mr. Arumugam Veeraragavan v. The District Collector,

ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned auction confirmation in proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.no. அ3/262/2026, dated 06.03.2026 on the file of the commissioner, Kandili Village, Tirupattur Taluk, Tirupattur District the 2nd respondent herein and to quash the same and issue necessary directions to conduct fresh auction as per law with immediate effect following all necessary procedures known to law.

¶2The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner participated in the tender auction for the weekly Sandhai for the year 2026-27. However, the 2nd respondent has not conducted the auction in a fair and transparent manner, particularly with respect to sealed cover procedure. According to the petitioner, the weekly Sandhai was confirmed in favour of the 3rd respondent by fixing the bid amount of R.16,65,000/-, whereas the earlier tender amount was Rs.16,60,000/-, with an enhancement of Rs.5,000/- only. It Page3 of 7 is therefore contended that the auction was not concluded in a fair and transparent manner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has challenged the auction confirmation order dated 06.03.2026 before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶3This Court on an earlier occasion i.e., on 30.03.2026, granted an order of interim injunction of the auction confirmation granted in favour of the third respondent, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to the credit of the 2nd respondent, within a period of one week.

¶4The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that in compliance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on the file of the 2nd respondent by way of Demand Draft and now ready to deposit balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as per clause 7 of the Auction Notification within a period of three weeks from today.

¶5The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent, vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the 3rd respondent participated in the tender process and since he is a successful bidder, auction was concluded in his favour. Page4 of 7 Therefore auction was concluded in a fair and transparent manner. Further, they would submit that earlier the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.11899 of 2026 challenging the auction notice and subsequently the same was withdrawn by the petitioner.

¶6In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially Writ Petition in W.P.No.11899 of 2026 was filed by the petitioner challenging the Auction Notification. Subsequently, since the auction was confirmed in favour of the 3rd respondent, the Writ Petition filed challenging the Auction Notification was withdrawn and thereafter the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition challenging the auction confirmation proceedings.

¶7Heard both sides. Perused the records.

¶8A perusal of the records clearly shows that auction notice was not published as per the procedure. That apart, the auction was confirmed in favour of the 3rd respondent by fixing the bid amount of Rs.16,65,000/-, which is just Rs.5,000/- more than the last year. This clearly shows the arbitrariness on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in conducting the auction. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the auction was conducted in a fair and transparent manner, they have not produced any documents to that effect. Page5 of 7

¶9In such view of the matter, the auction confirmation proceedings of the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order impugned herein is set aside. The petitioner is directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.on the file of the 2nd respondent, within a period of three weeks from today and on such amount being paid, the 2nd respondent is directed to conduct fresh auction by effecting publication as per the procedure. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are directed to participate in the auction. The auction proceedings shall be concluded on or before 25.06.2026. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner in the interest bearing deposit, till the completion of the tender proceedings.

¶10In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶11Post for reporting compliance before this Court on 29.06.2026. 22-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order arr Page6 of 7 To

1.The District Collector, Tirupattur District, Tirupattur.

2.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Kandhili, Tirupattur Taluk, Tirupattur District. Page7 of 7

M.DHANDAPANI, J. arr W.P No. 11899 of 2026 22-04-2026 Page8 of 7

Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 11899 of 2026 and WMP.Nos.12987, 12990, 12991 and 16608 of 2026 Mr. Arumugam Veeraragavan S/o.Veeraragavan, 2/19, Adhi Dravidar Colony, Matrapalli Village and Post, Tirupattur - 635 655, Tirupattur District. ..Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector, Tirupattur District, Tirupattur. 2. The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Kandhili, Tirupattur Taluk, Tirupattur District. 3. Kumaraswamy, S/o.Narayana Gownder, Matrapalli Village and Post, Tirupattur - 635 655, Tirupattur District. ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned auction confirmation in proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.no. அ3/262/2026, dated 06.03.2026 on the file of the commissioner, Kandili Village, Tirupattur Taluk, Tirupattur District the second respondent herein and to quash the same and issue necessary directions to Page2 of 7 conduct fresh auction as per law with immediate effect following all necessary procedures known to law. For Petitioner: Mr. S.D. Ramalingam For Respondents: Mr.A.Selvendran (R1) Special Government Pleader Mr.J.Mohamed Sathik (R2) Government Advocate Mr.R.Rajarajan (R3)