Prabakaran.A vs. The Executive Engineer, (Pwd)

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the auction held on October 5, 2023, for the fishing rights of Mugavoor Kanmai for a period of three years. The fourth respondent, M. Karuppasamy, was the highest bidder, offering Rs. 43,000/- for the first year, and an agreement was executed. The petitioner, whose father was the previous lessee, claimed no knowledge of the auction. The court noted insufficient publication of the auction, with only six participants. The auction was held at the first respondent's office, not in the concerned village. The petitioner's father was the previous lessee. The petitioner asserted he had no knowledge of the auction.

Held

The Court found that there was insufficient publication of the auction notice, as evidenced by the low participation of only six individuals. It was also observed that the auction was not held in the concerned village, which could have attracted more bidders. To resolve the dispute and ensure a fair outcome, the Court facilitated a competitive bidding process between the petitioner and the fourth respondent in its chambers. The petitioner's bid escalated to Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Court directed that Rs. 65,000/- of this amount be paid to the fourth respondent to compensate him for his participation and potential loss. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,85,000/- to the department for the first year's lease, along with GST at 18% and a 7% contribution to the Fishermen Welfare Association. The petitioner was granted the lease for three years, commencing from October 16, 2023, with the understanding that enhanced rates would apply for the second and third years, subject to potential adjustments for the fasli year.

Key Issues

1. Whether the auction for the fishing rights of Mugavoor Kanmai was conducted with sufficient publication and adherence to proper procedure, as required under relevant regulations governing public auctions of such rights? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that there was insufficient publication of the auction notice, leading to a lack of awareness among potential bidders, including himself. He argued that the auction should have been held in the concerned village to attract more participants and that the procedure followed was flawed. Respondents' arguments: The official respondents stated that proper intimation about the auction was sent to various local authorities, including the Tahsildar and Block Development Officer. They asserted that the procedure followed was in accordance with departmental practices, though the court noted the limited participation.