Madras High Court
V.Dharmaraj vs )The Managing Director on 6 April, 2016
Bench: S.Manikumar, C.T.Selvam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Writ Appeal(MD) No.528 of 2016
V.Dharmaraj ... Appellant
vs.
1)The Managing Director,
Sale Confirmation Committee,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandhanam, Chennai-35.
2)The Executive Engineer &
Administrative Officer,
Madurai Housing Unit,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Madurai-16. ... Respondents
Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the
order made in W.P(MD)No.10314 of 2011 dated 09.11.2011.
!For Appellant : Mr.M.Jothi Basu
^For Respondents : Mr.S.Nagarajan
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR) Challenge in this appeal, is to an order made in W.P(MD)No.10314 of 2011 dated 09.11.2011, by which, the Writ Court has declined to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings No.Allot.Co-or/47073- E/10, of the Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai. Consequently, the Writ Court refused to grant the prayer to confirm the auction sale held on 21.01.2011, in respect of the property MDU 035.
2.Pleadings disclose that there was an auction sale of commercial plots, conducted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The plots auctioned, were covered in Rajapalayam Thiruvalluvar Nagar Scheme and Madurai Uchampatty Phase-III Neighbourhood Scheme.
3.According to the petitioner, he was the highest bidder, in respect of commercial plot No.35. There were other successful bidders, in respect of other commercial plots. The Managing Director, Sales Confirmation Committee, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai, has confirmed sale in respect of few plots. For others, it was not confirmed. K.P.Alagarsamy, one of the bidders, has filed W.P(MD)Nos.9295, 9296, 10364 and 10365 of 2011. V.Dharmaraj, the appellant herein has filed W.P(MD)No.10314 of 2011 and K.Prithviraj, another bidder, has filed W.P(MD)Nos.10336 and 10337 of 2011. According to them, though they had paid 30% of the bid amount, as per the terms and conditions of the auction, the respondents in the writ petitions have rejected their offers and proceeded to advertise afresh. Hence, they have filed the above writ petitions, to quash the orders, rejecting their bids and issuing fresh auction notification.
4.Before the Writ Court, arguments have been advanced by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, by placing reliance on the files of the Sales Confirmation Committee. Upon perusal of the files, the Writ Court has found that the offer made by the writ petitioners was too low and therefore, the Sales Confirmation Committee had taken a decision to reject their offers and to put up the plots for fresh auction.
5.Adverting to the rival contentions, the Writ Court, vide common order made in W.P(MD)No.9295 of 2011 etc batch., dated 09.11.2011, has declined to grant the relief sought for, and at paragraphs 11 and 12 held as follows:-
''11. However, I should take note of one important fact viz., that as per the paper notification, the auction was conducted on different dates in January 2011. As per the terms and conditions of sale, the successful tenderer should deposit 15% of the bid amount at the auction spot, 35% within 3 weeks of confirmation of sale and balance 50% after adjusting the application money. Since 35% of the bid amount was to be paid within 3 weeks of receipt of confirmation of sale, the respondents ought to have taken a decision at least within those 3 weeks. After having collected 30% of the total bid amount from the petitioners, the delay on the part of the respondents in rejecting the highest bids and proceeding for fresh auction, is not fair and proper. It is only along with the orders of rejection that the respondents have sent the amount already paid by the petitioners. The orders of rejection were passed in June 2011. Therefore, the petitioners should also be compensated for the unjust enrichment on the part of the respondents in retaining the money belonging to the petitioners from February to June 2011 and keeping their hopes alive. Hence, while rejecting the prayers of the petitioners either for setting aside the orders of rejection or for fresh auction sale, the respondents are directed to pay interest to the petitioners for the amount retained by the respondents, at the rate of 9% per annum from 1.2.2011 till 31.5.2011. It is open to the petitioners to participate in the fresh auction.
12. The writ petitions are dismissed on the above terms. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.''
6.At this juncture, it is worthwhile to extract the Tabular Column made in the abovesaid common order W.P(MD)No.9295 of 2011 etc., dated 09.11.2011. W.P.No. Name of the petitioner Impugned Order Plot No. Upset Price Rs.
Quoted Price Rs.
New Upset Price Rs.
9295/11 K.P.Alagarsamy 10.6.2011 order of rejection 401
-
-
-
9296/11 K.P.Alagarsamy 10.6.2011 order of rejection 399
-
-
-
10314/11 V.Dharmaraj 3.6.2011 order of rejection 35 34,95,000/-
36,70,000/-
80,03,000/-
10336/11 Prithviraj Paper notification dated 2.9.2011 for sale 393 8,02,300/-
8,43,000/-
21,30,000/-
10337/11 Prithviraj Paper notification dated 2.9.2011 for sale 395 5,57,100/-
5,91,000/-
14,91,000/-
10364/11 K.P.Alagarsamy Paper notification dated 2.9.2011 for sale 399 36,54,300/-
38,40,000/-
40,94,000/-
10365/20 11 K.P.Alagarsamy Paper notification dated 2.9.2011 for sale 401 26,74,000/-
28,12,000/-
61,04,000/-
7.Though Mr.M.Jothi Basu, learned counsel for the appellant contended that for purchasing Plot No.35 in Rajapalayam Thiruvalluvar Nagar Scheme, when the appellant had offered a sum of Rs.36,70,000/-, which was 5% more than the upset price fixed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, action of the Managing Director, Sales Confirmation Committee, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in not confirming the sale and consequently, issuing a fresh notification was erroneous and against the principle of legitimate expectation, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contentions, for the reason that out of 31 commercial plots sold in public auction, only those, which fetched a reasonable margin, were confirmed by the Sales Confirmation Committee. Minutes of the Sales Confirmation Committee held on 03.06.2011 shows that the said committee comprising of (1)The Managing Director, (2)The Secretary & Personnel Officer, (3)The Financial Adviser, and (4)The Superintending Engineer(Headquarters), has found that many commercial plots sought to be purchased were with very less margin of just 5% and little more than the upset price. Offers which were reasonable have been accepted. The details of the approval and rejection of the offers are extracted hereunder:-
Sl.
No Auction Code No. Name of the Scheme Unit No. Extent in sft.
Name of the highest bidder Thiru/Tmt/Selvi/Tvl Upset price (In Rupees) Highest Bid amount (In Rupees) Resolution of the Committee 1 MDU 035 Rajapalayam TVS Nagar Shop site near 17472 V.Dharmaraj 3495000 3670000 5% Sale is rejected since the offer is not competitive. The committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board 2 MDU 045 Anuppanady S.I.48/1 Service Industrial site 2368 V.S.Hema malini 1184000 12444000 5% Sale is rejected since the offer less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the officer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to the Board.3
MDU 046 Anuppanady S.I.48/2 Service Industrial site 2368 G.Valarmathi 1184000 1244500 5% Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.4
MDU 047 Anuppanady S.I.48/3 Service Industrial site 2368 K.C.Gopi 1184000 1244000 5% Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.5
MDU 048 Anuppanady S.I.48/4 Service Industrial site 2368 M.S.Venkatesh 1184000 1520000 28% As there was no response for the previous 11 calls and as the offer is more than the Upset price, comparable sale rate and also competitive, the committee accepts the recommendations of the EE and confirms the sale.6
MDU 049 Anuppanady S.I.48/5 Service Industrial site 2368 P.L.Saravanan 1184000 1400000 19% As there was no response for the previous 11 calls and as the offer is more than the upset price, comparable sale rate and also competitive, the committee accepts the recommendations of the EE and confirms the sale.7
MDU 050 Anuppanady S.I.48/6 Service Industrial site 2368 K.A.Dhinakaran 1184000 1425000 20% As there was no response for the previous 11 calls and as the offer is more than the upset price, comparable sale rate and also competitive, the committee accepts the recommendations of the EE and confirms the sale 8 MDU 051 Anuppanady S.I.48/7 Service Industrial site 2368 V.R.Krishnan 1184000 1395000 17% As there was no response for the previous 11 calls and as the offer is more than the upset price, comparable sale rate and also competitive, the committee accepts the recommendations of the EE and confirms the sale.9
MDU 052 Anuppanady S.I.48/8 Service Industrial site 2368 T.R.Naga rajan 1184000 1800100 52% As there was no response for the previous 11 calls and as the offer is more than the upset price, comparable sale rate and also competitive, the committee accepts the recommendations of the EE and confirms the sale.10
MDU 071 Anuppanady S.I.50/4 Service Industrial site 2519 T.Aruna chalam 1259500 1323000 5% Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, the committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.11
MDU 077 Anuppanady S.I.52/3 Service Industrial site 3122 C.Deivarajan 1561000 1640000 Sale is rejected since the offer less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.12
MDU 0778 Anuppanady S.I.52/4 Service Industrial site 3122 D.Victoria 1561000 1640000 Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.13
MDU 079 Anuppanady S.I.52/5 Service Industrial site 3122 D.Victoria 1561000 1640000 Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.14
MDU 081 Anuppanady S.I.52/7 Service Industrial site 4602 C.Saroja 2301000 2418000 Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.15
MDU 082 Anuppanady S.I.52/8 Service Industrial site 3230 C.Deivarajan 1, 2 1615000 1696000 5% Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.16
Mdu 083 Anuppanady S.I.52/9 Service Industrial site 3230 C.Deivarajan 1, 2 1615000 1696000 5% Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.17
Mdu 084 Anuppanady S.I.52/10 Service Industrial site 3230 C.Deivarajan 1, 2 1615000 1696000 5% Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.18
MDU 092 Anuppanady 21/1 Prime commercial 1034 H.Raseet Hussain 613170 850000 38.6% As there was no response for the previous 10 calls and as the offer is more than the upset price, comparable sale rate and also competitive, the committee accepts the recommendations of the EE and confirms the sale.19
MDU 093 Anuppanady 21/2 Prime Commercial 1034 T.M.Vijaya rengan 613170 645500 Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.
20MDU 094 Anuppanady 21/3 Prime commercial 1034 T.Muniswaran 613170 645000 Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.
21MDU 095 Anuppanady 21/4 Primer commercial 1163 K.Murugan 689660 725000 Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.
22MDU 096 Anuppanady 21/5 Prime commercial 1163 K.Abubakkar Sithic 689660 725000 Sale is rejected since the bidder has not paid the 155 bid amount on the auction day.
23MDU 102 Anuppanady 23/1 Prime commercial 2196 K.Kala 1302230 1370000 52% Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.
24MDU 103 Anuppanady 23/2 Prime commercial 2196 K.Sujatha 1302230 1371000 52% Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.
25MDU 104 Anuppanady 23/3 Prime commercial 2196 K.Balasubramanian 1302230 1371000 52% Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.
26MDU 133 Anuppanady 26/5 Prime commencing 3848 K.J Prem Kumar 2281870 24410000 5.61% Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.
27MDU 149 Anuppanady 30/13 Prime commercial 3633 P.G.Valar mathy 2154370 2263000 5% Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.
28MDU 150 Anuppanady 30/14 Prime commercial 3633 P.L.Ganesh 2154370 2264100 5% Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.
29MDU 151 Anuppanady 30/15 Prime commercial 3633 M.Jahir Hussain 2154370 2264000 Sale is rejected since the offer is less than the offer received for a similar service Industrial site in the same location and also the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.
30MDU 362 Dindigul Ph-III Shop-I 778 S.Raman 623000 655000 Sale is rejected since the offer is not competitive. Therefore, committee decided to go for reauction to fetch more revenue to Board.
31MDU 373 Palani SMT Shop-6 2741 S.Murugesan 614000 645000 Sale is rejected since the bidder has remitted the application money through cash which is against the auction terms and conditions. Therefore, committee decided to go for reacution.
The above details make it abundantly clear that some of the bidders have offered very less amount. In so far as the case of the appellant V.Dharmaraj, is concerned, he has offered to purchase plot No.35 for Rs.36,70,000/- with just 5% margin, above the upset price.
8.When the instant appeal came up for hearing, Mr.S.Nagarajan, learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, submitted that pursuant to the common order made in W.P(MD)No.9295 of 2011 etc., batch, dated 09.11.2011, upholding fresh notifications, issued in respect of the shops, covered in the writ petitions, many shops have been sold, fetching higher value. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that so far, commercial plot No.35 has not been sold. For a query, as to why plot No.35, has not been sold so far, the reply of the learned counsel for the Housing Board was that since the present writ appeal was pending, it was not sold. The details of commercial plots re-auctioned and the difference in the amount offered by the bidders and the revenue earned by the Housing Board are as follows:-
Sl.No Auction Code No. Name of the highest bidder (Old) Upset Price (Old) Highest Bid amount (Old) Date of Upset Price (New Allottee Name of the highest bidder (New Upset Price (New) Highest Bid amount (New) Difference of amount 1 MDU 047 K.C.Gopi 11,84,000 12,44,000 16.12.2015 P.K.Vidhya Saraswathi 31,97,000 35,35,000 22,91,000 2 MDU 081 C.Saroja 23,01,000 24,18,000 5.10.2012 C.Saroja 55,23,000 58,65,000 34,47,000 3 MDU 082 C.Deivarajan 16,15,000 16,96,000 27.9.2012 C.Deivarajan 38,76,000 41,00,000 24,04,000 4 MDU 083 C.Deivarajan 16,15,000 16,96,000 27.9.2012 C.Deivarajan 38,76,000 41,55,000 24,59,000 5 MDU 084 C.Deivarajan 16,15,000 16,96,000 25.11.2011 C.Deivarajan 20,35,000 22,80,000 5,84,000 6 MDU 094 T.Munees-waran 6,13,170 6,45,000 30.3.2015 R.Sivarama Krishnan & Kannan 13,43,000 14,81,000 8,36,000 7 MDU 095 K.Murugan 6,89,660 7,25,000 30.3.2015 K.Murugan 15,12,000 16,75,000 9,50,000 8 MDU 096 K.Abubucker Siddique 6,89,660 7,25,000 16.12.2015 R.Sivarama Krishnan & Kannan 15,71,000 17,35,000 10,10,000
9.Comparison of the amount offered by the bidders in the auction held in 2011 and subsequently, as tabulated above, makes it abundantly clear that the Housing Board, in the re-auction, has earned a reasonable revenue, for each of the plots. As rightly observed by the Writ Court, merely because a person happens to be the highest bidder, he does not acquire a right to compel the auctioner to accept his offer. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board is the vendor of the commercial plots. It is always open to the vendor to accept the offer or to reject the same.
10.As stated supra, when auction was conducted for many commercial plots in 2011, Housing Board had confirmed the same wherever there was a reasonable offer to purchase the plots and at the same time, when the offer was just 5% more than the upset price, it had declined to do so. As rightly observed by the Writ Court, a proposed purchaser, who offers a price to buy a property, belonging to the Housing Board, cannot compel the latter, that his offer should be accepted. Such contention is untenable and based on the above, no writ can be issued. Reasons assigned by the Writ Court, for dismissing the writ petitions, including that of the appellant W.P(MD)No.10314 of 2011, cannot be said to be erroneous, warranting interference.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
To
1)The Managing Director, Sale Confirmation Committee, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandhanam, Chennai-35.
2)The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, Madurai Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madurai-16..