S.O. Rajammal Vs. the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Board, Nungambakkam, Madras and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
trusts and societies - tender - section 116 (2) and rules 9, 10 and 13 of t.n. hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959 - respondent issued notification inviting sealed tenders for grant of licence to run coconut and fruit stalls - petitioner became successful bidder - petitioner sought time to deposit balance amount - auction not confirmed by executive authority - executive authority cannot confirm auction within period of 60 days from date of auction - commissioner can exercise power under rule 13 if any condition of auction notice violated - petitioner violated conditions - commissioner cancelled impugned tender - held, findings of commissioner legal and valid. - - therefore, thc commissioner, was perfectly justified in issuing the order, cancelling the lease granted to the petitioner in respect of shop nos.order1. the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in ref. na. ka. no. 52981/93(1) v2 dated 1-9-1993 and to direct the respondent, not to interfere with the business of the petitioner in so far as shop nos. 1 and 2 of bannariamman temple, bannari, sathya-mangalam is concerned.2. consequent upon the notification dt. 13-6-1993, issued by the assistant commissioner, h. r. & c.e. board, erode, for inviting sealed tenders for grant of licence to run coconut and fruit stalls (includig flower) in the arulmigu bannari mariamman tem-pie, bannari, salhyamangalam for the fasli 140 i.e. from 1-7-1993 to 30-6-1994, the petitioner became the successful bidder in the auction held on 6-7-1993 in respect of shop nos. 1 and 2 on a monthly rental of rupees 15.555/- and rs. 24,555/- for the two shops respectively. though there was a condition in the tender that the successful bidder should deposit the entire 12 months rental in advance on the date of the auction itself, the petitioner, on becoming successful bidder and on his offer having confirmed, paid a sum of rs. 95,000/- and gave a letter to the chairman, board of trustees, seeking time to deposit the balance amount payable in respect of two shops in instalments. according to the petitioner, permission was orally granted to the petitioner to pay the balance of the lease amounts in instalments. it is further alleged by the petitioner that a further sum of rs. 51,550/- was deposited on 7-7-1993 and rs. 30.000/- on 8-7-1993 in additional to the earlier sum of rs.95,000/- deposited already, for shop no. 1. it is further alleged that in respect of shop no. 2, upto 3-8-1993, the petitioner had deposited a sum of rupees 1,32,129/-and obtained stamped receipt from the 2nd respondent. in the meanwhile, the possession of both shops have been hande-' over to the petitioner and it is alleged that the petitioner has already spent huge amount in the shops with huge expectation. while so, it is alleged that the petitioner received communication dt. 30-7-1993 on 3-8-1993 from the 1st respondent; stating that the petitioner had violated condition no. 2 of the auction notice and directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence granted to her should not be cancelled under s. 116(2)(13) and rule 13 of the h.r. & c.e. act. on receipt of the said communication, it is alleged, that the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and the temple board and they in turn promised the petitioner and assured her that nothing will happen. believing the said assurance made by the 2nd respondent and the temple board, it is alleged, that the petitioner had kept quiet and in the meanwhile deposited some more money and as on 11-8-1993 had deposited the entire rental for 12 months to the tune of rs. 2,94,660/- for shop no. 2 and obtained stamped receipts from the 2nd respondent. while so, the petitioner received the impugned order dt. 1-9-93 cancelling the licence granted to her in respect of shop nos. 1 and 2 and directing the 2nd respondent to take steps for conducting re-auction. aggrieved thereby the petitioner is before this court with the abovesaid prayer.3. the facts are not in dispute. no doubt the petitioner has been granted licence in respect of shop nos. 1 and 2 to run coconut stall and fruit shall (including flower stall) in arulmigu bannari mariamman temple, bannari, sathyamangalam, for the period from 1-7-93 to 30-6-94, according to the provisions of ihe hindu religious and charitable endowments act and rules framed thereunder.lt is necessary to refer to certain rules framed under s. 116(2)(xiii) of the tamil nadu act 22 of 1959 are relevant for deciding this case. rule 4 deals with auction nolice and ruie 6 deals with the conduct of the auction. according-to rule 8, lease shall ordinarily be given to the highest bidder, but in special cases, for leasons to be recorded in writing, a bid other than the highest bid may be accepted. rule 9 deals with the security while rule 10 deals with extension of lease. rule 13 deals with the 'veto by commissioner', which is relevant for the subject matter of this writ petition. rule 13 runs as follows:'13. the commissioner shall have the power to veto such lease for reasons (o be recorded in writing after giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations, if any.'4. rule 13 of the rules can be exercised by the commissioner, only within the period of 60 days from the date of auction and thereafter the executive authority can conj firm the tease. if the facts of this are looked into, it is clear that the auction has not been confirmed at all by the executive authority. in fact the auction had taken place on 6-7-93. the executive authority cannot confirm the auction within the period of 60 days from the date of auction, within which period, the commissioner can exercise his power of veto to cancel 'the lease as provided under rule 13 of section 116(2)(xiii) of the act. in this case, the commissioner has found that condition no. 2 of the auction nolice has been violated by the petitioner in deposing the .12 monthly rental in respect of shop nos. 1 and 2 within the stipulated time and therefore he issued a notice on 30-7-93, to show cause as to why the auction which has been concluded in his favour, should not be cancelled. admittedly the said notice had been received by the petitioner on 2-8-1993 but did not reply or respondent to the said notice. thereafter, the commissioner, an receipt of reports from the executive officer-deputy commissioner, concerned, has exercised his power under rule 13 and cancelled the lease granted to the petitioner in respect of shops 1 and 2 and directed the deputy commissioner/executive officer to conduct reauction. in the above circumstances, i do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the commissioner. though the petitioner states that she has substantially complied with the auction conditions with regard to the payment of monthly rental in respect of shop nos. 1 and 2, yet, the fact remains that condition no. 2, namely that the entire auction amounts in respect of shop nos. 1 and 2 have to be deposited by the successful bidder, on the date of auction itself, has not been complied with. the auction amounts, it appears have been paid on various dates in piecemeal. therefore, thc commissioner, was perfectly justified in issuing the order, cancelling the lease granted to the petitioner in respect of shop nos. i and 2, by, exercising his power under rule 13 of the rules. it is needless to point out that the commissioner can exercise his power under ruie 13 within 60 days from the date of auclion and till such time, neither the executive officer nor the board of trustees can act in contravention of the rules framed under the act. hence, it cannot be said that the power exercised by the commissioner under rule 13 of the rules is illegal or unwarranted. only to safeguard the interest of such religious institutions, the veto power under rule 13 has been conferred on the commissioner, otherwise, it may result in loss to the religious institutions not only in financial matters but also in general. further it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire lease amount had been paid in respect of shop no. 2 within two days from the date of auction, but that does not mean that the petitioner had paid the entire lease amount on the date of auction itself as per the condition no. 2 of auction notice. for all these reasons, i do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the commissioner impugned herein. consequently the writ petition fails and is dismissed.5. petition dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Ref. Na. Ka. No. 52981/93(1) V2 dated 1-9-1993 and to direct the respondent, not to interfere with the business of the petitioner in so far as shop Nos. 1 and 2 of Bannariamman Temple, Bannari, Sathya-mangalam is concerned.

2. Consequent upon the Notification dt. 13-6-1993, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, H. R. & C.E. Board, Erode, for inviting sealed tenders for grant of Licence to run coconut and fruit stalls (includig flower) in the Arulmigu Bannari Mariamman Tem-pie, Bannari, Salhyamangalam for the fasli 140 i.e. from 1-7-1993 to 30-6-1994, the petitioner became the successful bidder in the auction held on 6-7-1993 in respect of shop Nos. 1 and 2 on a monthly rental of Rupees 15.555/- and Rs. 24,555/- for the two shops respectively. Though there was a condition in the tender that the successful bidder should deposit the entire 12 months rental in advance on the date of the auction itself, the petitioner, on becoming successful bidder and on his offer having confirmed, paid a sum of Rs. 95,000/- and gave a letter to the Chairman, Board of trustees, seeking time to deposit the balance amount payable in respect of two shops in instalments. According to the petitioner, permission was orally granted to the petitioner to pay the balance of the lease amounts in instalments. It is further alleged by the petitioner that a further sum of Rs. 51,550/- was deposited on 7-7-1993 and Rs. 30.000/- on 8-7-1993 in additional to the earlier sum of Rs.95,000/- deposited already, for shop No. 1. It is further alleged that in respect of shop No. 2, upto 3-8-1993, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rupees 1,32,129/-and obtained stamped receipt from the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile, the possession of both shops have been hande-' over to the petitioner and it is alleged that the petitioner has already spent huge amount in the shops with huge expectation. While so, it is alleged that the petitioner received communication dt. 30-7-1993 on 3-8-1993 from the 1st respondent; stating that the petitioner had violated condition No. 2 of the auction notice and directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence granted to her should not be cancelled under S. 116(2)(13) and Rule 13 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. On receipt of the said communication, it is alleged, that the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and the Temple Board and they in turn promised the petitioner and assured her that nothing will happen. Believing the said assurance made by the 2nd respondent and the Temple Board, it is alleged, that the petitioner had kept quiet and in the meanwhile deposited some more money and as on 11-8-1993 had deposited the entire rental for 12 months to the tune of Rs. 2,94,660/- for shop No. 2 and obtained stamped receipts from the 2nd respondent. While so, the petitioner received the impugned order dt. 1-9-93 cancelling the licence granted to her in respect of shop Nos. 1 and 2 and directing the 2nd respondent to take steps for conducting re-auction. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner is before this court with the abovesaid prayer.

3. The facts are not in dispute. No doubt the petitioner has been granted licence in respect of shop Nos. 1 and 2 to run coconut stall and fruit shall (including flower stall) in Arulmigu Bannari Mariamman Temple, Bannari, Sathyamangalam, for the period from 1-7-93 to 30-6-94, according to the provisions of Ihe Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and Rules framed thereunder.lt is necessary to refer to certain Rules framed under S. 116(2)(xiii) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 are relevant for deciding this case. Rule 4 deals with auction nolice and Ruie 6 deals with the conduct of the auction. According-to Rule 8, lease shall ordinarily be given to the highest bidder, but in special cases, for leasons to be recorded in writing, a bid other than the highest bid may be accepted. Rule 9 deals with the security while Rule 10 deals with extension of lease. Rule 13 deals with the 'Veto by Commissioner', which is relevant for the subject matter of this writ petition. Rule 13 runs as follows:

'13. The Commissioner shall have the power to veto such lease for reasons (o be recorded in writing after giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations, if any.'

4. Rule 13 of the Rules can be exercised by the Commissioner, only within the period of 60 days from the date of auction and thereafter the Executive authority can conj firm the tease. If the facts of this are looked into, it is clear that the auction has not been confirmed at all by the executive authority. In fact the auction had taken place on 6-7-93. The executive authority cannot confirm the auction within the period of 60 days from the date of auction, within which period, the Commissioner can exercise his power of veto to cancel 'the lease as provided under Rule 13 of Section 116(2)(xiii) of the Act. In this case, the Commissioner has found that condition No. 2 of the auction nolice has been violated by the petitioner in deposing the .12 monthly rental in respect of shop Nos. 1 and 2 within the stipulated time and therefore he issued a notice on 30-7-93, to show cause as to why the auction which has been concluded in his favour, should not be cancelled. Admittedly the said notice had been received by the petitioner on 2-8-1993 but did not reply or respondent to the said notice. Thereafter, the Commissioner, an receipt of reports from the Executive Officer-Deputy Commissioner, concerned, has exercised his power under Rule 13 and cancelled the lease granted to the petitioner in respect of shops 1 and 2 and directed the Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer to conduct reauction. In the above circumstances, I do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner. Though the petitioner states that she has substantially complied with the auction conditions with regard to the payment of monthly rental in respect of shop Nos. 1 and 2, yet, the fact remains that condition No. 2, namely that the entire auction amounts in respect of shop Nos. 1 and 2 have to be deposited by the successful bidder, on the date of auction itself, has not been complied with. The auction amounts, it appears have been paid on various dates in piecemeal. Therefore, thc Commissioner, was perfectly justified in issuing the order, cancelling the lease granted to the petitioner in respect of shop Nos. I and 2, by, exercising his power under Rule 13 of the Rules. It is needless to point out that the Commissioner can exercise his power under Ruie 13 within 60 days from the date of auclion and till such time, neither the Executive Officer nor the Board of Trustees can act in contravention of the Rules framed under the Act. Hence, it cannot be said that the power exercised by the Commissioner under Rule 13 of the Rules is illegal or unwarranted. Only to safeguard the interest of such religious institutions, the veto power under Rule 13 has been conferred on the Commissioner, otherwise, it may result in loss to the religious institutions not only in financial matters but also in general. Further it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire lease amount had been paid in respect of shop No. 2 within two days from the date of auction, but that does not mean that the petitioner had paid the entire lease amount on the date of auction itself as per the condition No. 2 of auction notice. For all these reasons, I do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the commissioner impugned herein. Consequently the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

5. Petition dismissed.