Pradeesh.V vs. The District Collector

Facts

A batch of ten writ petitions was filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioners were successful bidders in public auctions for various shops in the Thingal Nagar Selection Grade Town Panchayat. After being declared the highest bidders and depositing the required amounts, including GST, they received notices indicating that the Panchayat Council had not approved their bids. Consequently, they were informed that their deposited amounts would be returned and a fresh auction would be conducted. The petitioners challenged these notices, seeking to quash them and to be allowed to continue their business in the allotted shops. The impugned notices were dated July 28, 2021, and the re-auction notices were dated July 26, 2021.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders were not sustainable. The primary reason cited in the impugned orders was the lack of approval by the Panchayat Council. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that an order must speak for itself and cannot be supported by subsequent pleadings or statements made by the parties. Examining the impugned orders, the Court found that the sole reason provided was the non-approval by the Council, which was deemed insufficient to justify the cancellation of the bids. Therefore, the Court found the orders unsustainable. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petitions by quashing the impugned orders. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed with confirming bids for matters not covered by this order, except for shops covered by separate orders in W.P.(MD).Nos.14419 and 15304 of 2021. The associated miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned auction-cum-tender notices, which cancelled the bids of the petitioners, are sustainable in law, considering the reasons provided therein. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the impugned notices were illegal and unsustainable. They contended that they had participated in public auctions, emerged as the highest bidders, and deposited the necessary amounts, including GST. The subsequent cancellation of their bids and the scheduling of fresh auctions, based solely on the lack of Panchayat Council approval without providing cogent reasons, were arbitrary and violated their rights. They relied on the principle that an order must stand or fall by its own contents and cannot be supported by subsequent pleadings or statements. Revenue/State's contention: The learned counsel for the State and the Executive Officer submitted that out of 65 shops auctioned, 49 were confirmed as their bid values exceeded Rs. 10,000. For the remaining 16 shops where the highest bid was less than Rs. 10,000, a re-auction was scheduled. They noted that while re-auctions for some shops were successful, re-auctions for the shops concerning the petitioners did not take place due to interim orders obtained by them.