ORDER The petitioner in W.P.No.17466 of 2012 by name Nirmala was the licensee to collect the fees for Public Convenience at Cuddalore Bus stand for the period 2009-2012 and the said period came to an end on 31.03.2012. 2. In respect of the said Public Convenience, the first respondent-Cuddalore Municipality issued a Notification, dated 22.12.2011, calling for tender, as the period for existing license came to an end on 31.03.2012 as stated above. The said notification, with item No.13 relating to Public Convenience in Cuddalore Bus Stand, was published in the Vernacular Daily 'Thina Boomi' on 07.01.2012, stating that apart from tender, auction was to take place on 25.01.2012. 3. The petitioner-T.Nirmala quoted the highest amount of Rs.31 lakhs while the second respondent-D.Narayanan, who is the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.14452 and 14453 of 2012, quoted Rs.25 lakhs. Hence, she was declared as the highest bidder and the tender result was placed before the Council for approval. But, the Council recommended for issuance of tender to the second respondent for Rs.25 lakhs, while the petitioner offered the higher amount. 4. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4134 of 2012 seeking to forbear the first respondent from issuing license to the second respondent. The first respondent Municipality filed their counter therein stating that the Power Agent representing the petitioner in the public auction had filed some cases against the Municipality and therefore, the offer made by the petitioner was not considered. After considering the submission made by the counsel on either side, this Court disposed of the writ petition on 03.04.2012 directing the first respondent to conduct the auction afresh. 5. Consequently, the first respondent published a Notification dated 06.04.2012 in the Tamil Daily 'Thinathanthi' calling for interested tenderers to make applications and mentioning that the public auction would take place on 20.04.2012. The auction took place on the scheduled date with adequate police bandobust. The petitioner was one of the tenderers and she offered Rs.42,03,000/-in her tender application. The second respondent-D. Narayanan, in whose favour earlier the first respondent issued license, offered Rs.41,05,547/-. One Tmt. S. Tilakavathi participated in the public auction and has quoted Rs.39,99,999/-. 6. In those circumstances, the second respondent sent a representation dated 23.04.2012 to the first respondent that he may be permitted to make further bid for an amount of Rs.43 lakhs. The second respondent-D. Narayanan, in whose favour earlier the first respondent issued license, offered Rs.41,05,547/-. One Tmt. S. Tilakavathi participated in the public auction and has quoted Rs.39,99,999/-. 6. In those circumstances, the second respondent sent a representation dated 23.04.2012 to the first respondent that he may be permitted to make further bid for an amount of Rs.43 lakhs. But, the first respondent in his proceedings dated 30.05.2012 rejected the request of the second respondent relying Clause 51 of the General Auction and Tender Notification, which states that any person, who intends to make higher offer than the successful tenderer, he/she should make the same within 24 hours by remitting the entire amount offered. 7. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 30.05.2012 of the first respondent, the second respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14452 of 2012 seeking to quash the proceedings of the fist respondent dated 30.05.2012 and consequently, to direct the first respondent to confirm the offer of Rs.43 lakhs made by him in respect of the right to collect license fees for the public toilets and bathrooms in Cuddalore Bus Stand. 8. The second respondent has also filed another writ petition in W.P.No.14453 of 2012 to declare Clause 51 of the General Auction and Tender Notification published by the first respondent the Commissioner, Cuddalore Municipality for the period 2012-13 to 2014-15 as arbitrary, illegal, irrational and null and void. 9. Inasmuch as all the three writ petitions viz. W.P.Nos.14452 and 14453 of 2012 filed by D.Narayanan and W.P.No.17466 of 2012 filed by T.Nirmala are inter-connected, they are given joint disposal by this Common Order. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-T.Nirmala submitted that since the petitioner was the highest bidder in the tender-cum-auction, that took place on 20.04.2012, her offer should have been confirmed and thereby, license should have been issued. Since the same was not done, she has been constrained to filed W.P.No.17466 of 2012 seeking for a direction to confirm the auction held on 20.04.2012 in respect of collection of fees from the users of the Public convenience in the Cuddalore Municipal Bus Stand. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that Clause 51 of the General Auction and Tender Notification is arbitrary and illegal and the same would cause prejudice even to the interest of the first respondent Municipality. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that Clause 51 of the General Auction and Tender Notification is arbitrary and illegal and the same would cause prejudice even to the interest of the first respondent Municipality. According to him, when a person offers higher amount than the successful tenderer, Clause 51 prevents the same being considered and therefore, the said Clause has to be declared as illegal. Even if such a condition is allowed to exist, the same cannot be put in use, in terms of the time factor provided therein viz. 24 hours, particularly, when the next day is Sunday and the person, who makes the higher offer, cannot deposit the amount. 12. Assailing the impugned order dated 30.05.2012 of the first respondent, learned counsel states that the Commissioner has no authority to reject the same and the Municipality alone has the authority to consider the entire issue and therefore, the order of the Commissioner, dated 30.05.2012, is without jurisdiction. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent pointed out that in W.P.No.13054 of 2012 filed earlier before this Court by D.Narayanan, seeking for a direction to the Commissioner of Municipality to pass orders on his representation dated 23.04.2012 making higher offer than the successful bidder, this Court, by an order dated 04.05.2012, directed the Commissioner of Municipality to pass orders on the representation dated 23.04.2012 of petitioner-D.Narayanan within a period of 30 days. In obedience to the said order passed by this Court, the Commissioner, in fact, held personal hearing on 28.05.2012, and it was replied to the second respondent-D.Narayanan that as per the said Clause 51, if any tenderer wants to offer higher amount than the successful tenderer, he should make the same within 24 hours by remitting the entire amount. Hence, he sought for dismissal of both the writ petitions filed by the second respondent-D.Narayanan. 14. I have considered the rival submission made on either side. 15. For better appreciation of the given facts and circumstances of the case, Clause 51 of the General Auction and Tender Notification is relevant to be extracted hereunder: VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 16. The above said Clause gives a reasonable time for a person to quote higher amount than the successful tenderer for seeking a fresh auction. It is not the case of petitioner-D. Narayanan that he offered higher amount within 24 hours. The above said Clause gives a reasonable time for a person to quote higher amount than the successful tenderer for seeking a fresh auction. It is not the case of petitioner-D. Narayanan that he offered higher amount within 24 hours. When tender-cum-auction took place on 20.04.2012, in which the second respondent quoted lesser amount than petitioner-T. Nirmala in the tender and he was not the successful bidder, he made the representation only after three days i.e. on 23.04.2012, making higher offer of Rs.43 lakhs. Such a course is not permitted by Clause 51, which provides in clear terms that if a successful tenderer wants to quote higher amount, he should do it at the earliest. Here, it is the admitted fact that the second respondent D. Narayanan wants for three long days to quote the higher amount. Even thereafter, the second respondent did not seek for fresh auction and on the other hand, he wants the auction to be confirmed in his favour based on his higher offer made behind the back of the petitioner. In my view , the submission made by the learned counsel for the second respondent has no merit at all, and accordingly, I hold that no infirmity in Clause 51, so as to declare it null and void. 17. It must also be pointed out that the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the second respondent-D.Narayanan in Gowrishankar and another v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust and others ( (1996) 3 SCC 310 ), has no application to the facts of this case, as it was a matter relating to the sale of Trust property. 18. As far as the order dated 30.05.2012 passed by the Commissioner of first respondent Municipality is concerned, the second respondent-D. Narayanan is not correct in stating that the same was passed without authority, particularly, when this Court gave a direction on 04.05.2012 in W.P.No.13054 of 2012 to the Commissioner of first respondent Municipality to dispose of the representation dated 23.04.2012 of the second respondent-D. Narayanan within a period of 30 days. Further, the representation dated 23.04.2012 of the second respondent is made only to the Commissioner of the first respondent Municipality, therefore, he cannot find fault with the Commissioner for passing orders on the same. Further, the representation dated 23.04.2012 of the second respondent is made only to the Commissioner of the first respondent Municipality, therefore, he cannot find fault with the Commissioner for passing orders on the same. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the first respondent dated 30.05.2012 stating that the offer made by the second respondent is contrary to the said Clause 51. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, W.P.Nos.14452 and 14453 of 2012 filed by the second respondent-D. Narayanan are dismissed and W.P.No.17466 of 2012 filed by the petitioner T. Nirmala is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent-the Commissioner, Cuddalore Municipality, to confirm the auction held on 20.04.2012, in respect of collection of fees from the users of the Public Convenience in the Cuddalore Municipal Bus Stand and hand over the license for collection of fees to the petitioner T. Nirmala. The said exercise shall be done within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.