Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 2. The order impugned in this case is that of the second respondent dated 10. 2007 by which the second respondent has rejected the candidature of the petitioner as a participant in the auction on the ground that he has paid the less amount of application fees. 3. It is seen that the respondent has issued an advertisement in the newspaper Dinathanthi on 8. 2007 calling for applications to purchase the Commercial/School sites by sealed tenders cum open auction to be held on 8. 2007. The petitioner on seeing the said advertisement has approached the second respondent and received an application for allotment of a plot in the commercial site No. S1 to an extent of 2800 sqft. Under Dharapuram Scheme on payment of the application charge of Rs.560/-. The second respondent has fixed the upset price as Rs.10,31,000/- for the said site. The petitioner has paid the earnest money of Rs.25,000/- as directed by the second respondent in the advertisement. The petitioner has participated in the open auction which was held on 8. 2007 and the petitioner was found to be the highest bidder for the amount of Rs.10,36,000/-. As per the terms of advertisement issued by the respondents, the petitioner being the highest bidder has paid 15% of the bid amount, i.e., Rs.1,55,400/- on the date of auction, namely, on 8. 2007 and the petitioner was with a hope of getting allotment so as to pay the balance amount as per the advertisement. It was at that time, the second respondent has issued the above said impugned order dated 10. 2007 stating that the petitioner’s tender has been rejected on the ground that the application money, which he has paid is less than what is required. It is also seen that the respondents by an earlier order dated 29. 2007 have rejected the claim of the petitioner by refunding the application money as well as 15% of the bid amount paid by him and thereafter, the petitioner has made representation on 10. 2007. It was based on the said representation, the impugned order came to be passed by assigning the above said reason. 4. 2007 have rejected the claim of the petitioner by refunding the application money as well as 15% of the bid amount paid by him and thereafter, the petitioner has made representation on 10. 2007. It was based on the said representation, the impugned order came to be passed by assigning the above said reason. 4. As correctly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the participation of the petitioner in the auction was as per the advertisement issued by the respondents/ Housing Board. As per the terms of the advertisement, it is clear that in respect of EHU037 S1 to the extent of 2863 sq.f.t., which is allotted for public purpose, the upset price has been fixed in the advertisement was Rs.10,31,000/-and the petitioner has paid the earnest money of Rs.25,000/-, since as per the advertisement, the upset price is less than Rs.12.50 lakhs. As per the clause contained in the advertisement, it is clear that the bidder should deposit 15% of the bid amount on the auction spot and the remaining 35% within three weeks from the date of receipt of confirmation of sale and the balance 50% after adjusting the earnest money deposit amount already paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of confirmation of sale. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as earnest money deposit, since the upset price quoted by the respondents themselves is only Rs.10,31,000/-, which is less than Rs.12.50 lakhs. Thereafter when the auction took place on 8. 2007, the petitioner was found to be the highest bidder in respect of said site and in respect of that 15% of the amount has been paid by the petitioner, which comes to Rs.1,55,400/-. As per the advertisement, the petitioner has to pay another 35% on confirmation of sale. When that is the position as per the advertisement, it is now known as to how the second respondent has passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner has paid lower amount along with the application fees. 6. In view of the above said infirmity in the order and after hearing both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 10. 6. In view of the above said infirmity in the order and after hearing both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 10. 2007 is set aside and the second respondent shall consider the partition of the petitioner in the auction, which was held on 8. 2007 as per the advertisement issued on 8. 2007 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.