Judgment 1. A public auction cum tender notice was issued by the Erode Municipal Corporation on 10.12.2013, inviting sealed tenders as well as proposing an open auction, for leasing out 90 shops, under a Scheme known as Integrated Development Scheme for Small & Medium Traders (IDSMT). The shops were actually divided into two categories, namely A type and B type. There are 78 shops under the A type and 12 shops under the B type. The shops under A type are of a measurement of 6” x 6”. The shops under B type are of the measurement of 12.4½ x 6”. 2. As per the tender notification, the tenderers should submit sealed tenders up to 11 am on 27.12.2013. The public auction was to be held at 11.30 am. 3. The Earnest Money Deposit was fixed at Rs.25,000/- for A type shops and at Rs.50,000/- for B type shops. The Earnest Money Deposit was to be made in the form of a demand draft drawn in favour of the Corporation and deposited with the Treasury of the Corporation between 10.00 am and 4.00 pm on 26.12.2013. Separate bids were to be given for each shop. Under Clause 2 of the notice, the applicants were required not only to file separate applications for every shop, but were also required to pay Earnest Money Deposit separately for public auction and separately for the sealed tender. 4. It appears that when the public auction was conducted by a Committee of five persons constituted by the Corporation for the specific purpose, five persons, by name M. Arumugam, S. Sivaraman, K. Vairavel, V. Manigandan and R. Gunasekaran, alone participated and bid for all the 90 shops. 5. After completion of the public auction and when the Committee was about to open the tender, a person by name B. Baskaran, who had submitted an application only for public auction, but who did not turn up for public auction, suddenly appeared and wanted to participate in the tender. When the box was opened, an unsealed single cover put into the box by the said Baskaran was available. The unsealed cover contained applications for participation in the public auction for all the 90 shops. 6. Interestingly, it was found that the said B. Baskaran quoted a rate of Rs.2,400/- per month for A type shops and Rs.2,700/- per month for B type shops. The unsealed cover contained applications for participation in the public auction for all the 90 shops. 6. Interestingly, it was found that the said B. Baskaran quoted a rate of Rs.2,400/- per month for A type shops and Rs.2,700/- per month for B type shops. But, the five persons who participated in the public auction, quoted rates ranging from Rs.1,600/- to Rs.1,700/- per month, per shop. 7. In view of the fact (i) that the said B. Baskaran applied for open auction, but did not participate therein, and (ii) that the rate quoted by five persons who participated in the public auction happened to be much lower than the rate quoted out of turn by the said Baskaran, the tender Committee considered the whole matter. As per the report of the Chief Engineer of the Corporation dated 19.10.2009, the rental value had been arrived at as Rs.76/- per sq.ft. Therefore, the tender Committee decided not to accept either the offer made by B. Baskaran or by those five persons who participated in the public auction. In view of the said decision, the Municipal Corporation issued a fresh auction cum tender notice dated 09.01.2014, inviting sealed tenders up to 11.00 am on 28.01.2014 and proposing to hold an auction at 11.30 am on the same date. 8. Upon coming to know of the fresh tender cum auction notice, the aforesaid Baskaran came up with a writ petition in W.P.No.1839 of 2014. His prayer was to set aside the second auction notice and for a consequential direction to the Corporation to accept his bid. 9. On 24.01.2014, his writ petition W.P.No.1839 of 2014 came up for admission. While ordering notice of motion, the learned Judge before whom the case came up, granted an interim stay. Consequently, the tenders could not be opened and auction could not be conducted on 28.01.2014. 10. Thereafter, the aforesaid five persons, who participated in the public auction, came up with independent writ petitions in W.P.Nos.6130 to 6134 of 2014 challenging not only the fresh auction notice dated 09.01.2014, but also seeking a direction to the Corporation to confirm the bids submitted by them in the public auction. Therefore, these five writ petitions were also tagged together with the first writ petition, for hearing together. 11. I have heard Mr. S. Prabakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1839 of 2014, Mr. Therefore, these five writ petitions were also tagged together with the first writ petition, for hearing together. 11. I have heard Mr. S. Prabakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1839 of 2014, Mr. R. Abdul Hameed, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6130 to 6134 of 2014, Mr. P. Govindasamy, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Government and Mr. R. Sivakumar, learned counsel for the Corporation. 12. The main grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.1839 of 2014 is that he happened to be the highest bidder in the tender opened on 27.12.2013 and that the offers made by those five persons who participated in the public auction were far below the rate quoted by him. Therefore, it is contended by Mr. S. Prabakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in the first writ petition that there is no justification for the Corporation to cancel the first tender cum auction notice. 13. The contention of those five persons is that the petitioner in the first writ petition did not participate in the public auction, despite having applied for the same. He did not submit a sealed tender and hence, he was not entitled to participate in the tender process. Therefore, the bid submitted by the petitioner in the first writ petition cannot at all be accepted and he should be disqualified. 14. The Erode City Municipal Corporation has filed a counter affidavit mainly contending two things, namely (a) that the petitioner in the first writ petition applied for public auction, but did not participate and hence, the tender submitted by him by just putting them in the box at the time of opening of the tender, cannot be accepted, and (b) that the offers made by those five persons cannot also be accepted in view of the low rates quoted by them. In other words, the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation is that the petitioner in the first writ petition is disqualified on account of his actions. The petitioners in the other five writ petitions have quoted a very low rate, which is not acceptable to the Corporation. 15. The fact that the petitioner in the first writ petition did not comply with condition No.2 in the public auction cum tender notice, by applying separately for the public auction and the tender, is borne out clearly by the records. He did not also participate in the public auction. 15. The fact that the petitioner in the first writ petition did not comply with condition No.2 in the public auction cum tender notice, by applying separately for the public auction and the tender, is borne out clearly by the records. He did not also participate in the public auction. Therefore, the petitioner in the first writ petition is obviously disqualified. 16. The petitioners in the other five writ petitions quoted rates, which were far below the rate quoted by the petitioner in the first writ petition. The rates quoted by all of them were far below the market rate of rent as determined by the Chief Engineer of the Corporation way back in 2009. 17. Therefore, by invoking the power under Clause 5 of the auction cum tender notice, the second respondent was entitled to cancel the auction. 18. The contention of Mr. S. Prabakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in the first writ petition is that the power to cancel the auction and go in for re-auction, vests only with the Municipal Council and that without even convening a meeting of the Municipal Council, the Commissioner of the Corporation had acted arbitrarily. 19. But, I do not think that the petitioner can raise this contention. The petitioner participated in the tender, in pursuance of the very same notice that contains the condition which entitles the Commissioner also to cancel the auction. After all, the Commissioner of the Corporation is the Executive Authority. The tender notice indicates that he is entitled to reject any offer and go for fresh auction. 20. Apart from all the above, there is one fact which is highly disturbing. There are 90 shops which were put up for auction. 78 shops are of the measurement of 6” x 6”. The remaining 12 shops are of the measurement 12.4½” x 6”. The Scheme under which the shops are built is known as Integrated Development Scheme for Small and Medium Traders. But, none of the petitioners herein appears to be a small or medium trader. The petitioner in the first writ petition had submitted offers for all the 90 shops, by enclosing demand drafts of Rs.25,000/- each for 78 shops and Rs.50,000/- each for 12 shops. In other words, the total Earnest Money allegedly deposited by the petitioner in the first writ petition is more than about Rs.25.00 Lakhs. 21. The petitioner in the first writ petition had submitted offers for all the 90 shops, by enclosing demand drafts of Rs.25,000/- each for 78 shops and Rs.50,000/- each for 12 shops. In other words, the total Earnest Money allegedly deposited by the petitioner in the first writ petition is more than about Rs.25.00 Lakhs. 21. So far as the other five persons are concerned, they are no less better. May be they are smaller than the petitioner in the first writ petition, but, they are certainly not small or medium traders. These five persons, who are the petitioners in the other five writ petitions, attempted to corner all the 90 shops as between themselves, for as low a rate as Rs.1,600/- per shop. 22. I do not know how and why the Municipal Corporation did not cancel the auction, on this very ground. As a matter of fact, Clause 17 of the auction cum tender notice clearly stipulates that no shop shall be sublet or transferred to somebody else. If all 90 shops are cornered by one individual, or by five individuals forming themselves into a cartel, Clause 17 will be the first casualty. Therefore, when the Commissioner found that there were only very few people who had submitted offers for all the 90 shops, he should have cancelled the auction. 23. Repeatedly cases of such nature come to the notice of this Court where small shops built for the benefit of small and medium traders are cornered by powerful people, who sublet the shops for a higher rent and make a profit out of the public property. This cannot happen if the local bodies are vigilant or at least if the vigilance is vigilant. It is not an impossible task to curtail this practice. All that is required is to ensure that every person who participates in an auction has an independent identity card, containing separate addresses. The licensees of these shops, if made to apply for licenses, will be forced to apply in their own names. Therefore, even if someone attempts to take more than one shop under different names, it will not be possible for them to produce identity proof. But, unfortunately, a careful consideration of these aspects, appears to be lacking. 24. Public interest will be sub-served only if public largesse, especially of such small nature, go to the benefit of the poor and the needy. But, unfortunately, a careful consideration of these aspects, appears to be lacking. 24. Public interest will be sub-served only if public largesse, especially of such small nature, go to the benefit of the poor and the needy. Suitable conditions are to be incorporated in the auction cum tender notice, so that the practice of few persons cornering the common resources of the community could be curtailed. 25. It is submitted by Mr. S. Prabakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in the first writ petition that the petitioners in the other five writ petitions have already cornered about 600 shops within the Erode Municipality. Though the learned counsel for those petitioners refuted this allegation, I think it requires investigation. 26. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are disposed of, with the following directions: (i) The prayer of the petitioners to cancel the auction notice and to direct the respondents to accept their bids is rejected; (ii) Since the date fixed for public auction cum tender under the impugned notice has already expired, the Municipal Corporation shall issue a fresh notice for public auction cum tender; (iii) In the notice so issued by the Corporation, the Corporation shall incorporate certain important conditions, namely: (a) All persons desirous of participating in the auction and/or tender, should furnish proof of address in the form of Voters ID Card, Family Card, Pan Card, Driving License or anyone of these; (b) No person shall be allowed to bid for more than one shop. Each person should be allowed to bid only in respect of one shop, whose number should also be mentioned in the application; (c) The corporation should insist that the applications should carry the photographs of the applicant; (iv) Upon a license being granted to the successful bidder, a separate card should be given to the licensee, so that the shop could be inspected at any time and the ground reality whether the licensee is running a shop therein could be physically verified by any one; and (v) When a fresh auction cum tender is conducted, it will be open to the petitioners herein to participate therein and bid for one shop each. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1, 2, 9 to 13 of 2014 in W.P.No.1839 of 2014 and M.P.No.2 of 2014 in W.P.Nos.6130 to 6134 of 2014 are closed.