Newspaper publication before public auction not an empty formality: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Publication in newspapers about an auction of public tenders should not be an empty formality and there should be a reasonable time gap between the date of newspaper publication and the auction date, the Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled..Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari made the observation while quashing certain auction proceedings conducted by the State municipal authorities last March, after finding that the time gap between the newspaper publication and the actual date of auction was not sufficient. ."Publication in newspaper should not be an empty formality. The purpose is to make publicly known an information and to attract the attention of the public/individual concerned to such information for the purposes for which such publication is made," the judgment stated. .The judge explained that the objective of such newspaper publication is to disseminate information to the public and make public aware that a public auction is to take place on a particular date. This is to enable them to participate in the auction by giving such persons sufficient time to fulfill the requisite formalities as provided under the terms of the publication, the Court observed..The petitioner before the Court had challenged auction proceedings for the collection of market fees in a certain area in the Pedana Municipality. The auction was held on March 4, whereas notice of the auction was carried in two newspapers on March 2 and March 3. The petitioner claimed that such notice of only 1 or 2 days was not sufficient and that the petitioner could not participate in the auction proceedings, as a result. The Court found that the procedure followed in the present auction was faulty and not in line with the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure) Rules, 1968. "It is not as per the spirit of Rule 7 of the Rules 1968, even though Rule does not provide for any specific time gap. A ‘reasonable period’ as of necessity and to ensure fairness, is to be read in Rule 7 (4) of the Rules 1968," the Court held. .There was no reasonable or fair opportunity given to the public to participate in the public auction on such short notice, the Court added..The Court further remarked that the crucial factor did not concern who could or could not have participated in the auction. Rather, the issue was if there was ample time provided through newspaper publication to allow for wide publicity."Certainly if wide publicity was given by newspaper publication giving sufficient time, it could have fetched more persons to participate. Such possibility cannot be ruled out. It is a public auction and revenue to the Corporation being involved, the requirement is, adopting the fair and transparent procedure. State largess can be granted only by following that procedure," the Court held..As such, the Court proceeded to allow the petition and quashed the March 4 auction proceedings. ."A reasonable time gap is must to enable the public to apply by completing the requisite formalities. Such reasonable period may differ in different kinds of auction and an universal time period may not be laid down by this Court, but in the facts of the present case, the period of just one or two days, between the date of publication of notice in the newspapers and holding of the auction, cannot be considered to be a reasonable period," the Court reasoned. .Subsequently, the authorities concerned were directed to conduct fresh auctions in line with the 1968 Rules. .[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.