The Andhra Pradesh High Court has stated that the newspaper publication preceding a public auction should not be regarded as a mere  procedural requirement without any substance.

Keywords: – Publication, Court, Newspaper, Judgement.

The recent ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court emphasizes that the publication of public tender auction details in newspapers should not be considered a meaningless formality. The court further stated that there should be a reasonable time period between the newspaper publication and the auction date. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari made this observation while invalidating specific auction proceedings conducted by municipal authorities in March, as it was found that the time gap between the newspaper publication and the actual auction date was inadequate.

“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 purpose of publishing auction information in newspapers, as explained by the judge, is to inform the public about the upcoming public auction on a specific date. The court stressed that this allows individuals enough time to participate in the auction by completing the necessary formalities mentioned in the publication.

In a case where the petitioner challenged the auction proceedings regarding market fee collection in a particular area within the Pedana Municipality, the auction took place on March 4. However, the notice announcing the auction was published in two newspapers on March 2 and March 3.

The petitioner argued that the notice period of only 1 or 2 days was insufficient, resulting in their inability to participate in the auction. The Court agreed, concluding that the auction procedure followed was flawed and did not comply 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.

According to the Court’s ruling, the public was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to participate in the auction due to the short notice provided. The Court emphasized that the crucial factor was not about who could or could not participate, but rather whether there was sufficient time and wide publicity through newspaper publication.

The Court acknowledged that if there had been extensive publicity with ample time provided, more people could have participated. Considering it was a public auction involving revenue for the Corporation, it was essential to follow fair and transparent procedures when granting state benefits.

Consequently, the Court granted the petition and invalidated the auction proceedings that took place on March 4. The Court emphasized the importance of a reasonable time gap for the public to apply and complete the necessary formalities. While the Court did not set a universal time period, it deemed the period of just one or two days between the notice publication and the auction date as insufficient.

The authorities were subsequently instructed to conduct fresh auctions in compliance with the 1968 Rules.

Written by- Mubashara Fatima, College name- Unity PG and Law College, Semester- 6th, intern under Legal Vidhiya

Admin