‘Publication In Newspaper Should Not Be An Empty Formality’: Andhra Pradesh HC Quashes Auction For Collection Of Market Fee In Pedana Municipality

Observing that publication in newspaper should not be an empty formality, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed auction proceedings initiated by Pedana Municipality for the collection of market fee.

“The purpose (of publication) is to make publicly known information and to attract the attention of the public/individual concerned to such information for the purposes for which such publication is made,” said Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari.

The court said the purpose of publication is to make public know that on a particular date the public auction is to take place and to enable them to participate, giving sufficient time to fulfill the requisite formalities as provided under the terms of the publication, the court said, while holding that procedure as followed in the present “auction is faulty.” 

"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," said the court, adding that there was no reasonable or fair opportunity for the public to participate in the public auction in such short notice through paper publication.

The petition was filed challenging the annual auction proceedings for collection of market fee for the year 2023 -2024 issued by Pedana Municipality which was held on March 4. The notice for the auction was published in Sakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper on March 2 and Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily Newspaper on March 3.

Two days notice period to the public to complete all the formalities published in the notification including attestation of the documents, latest encumbrance certificate etc, “is not a reasonable period”, the court opined.

Considering that there is no prescribed time period under the Rules, the court said, “in the absence of any such time period for notice, between newspaper publication and the date of auction, in the view of this Court, it should be of sufficient and reasonable duration to make the procedure fair and transparent.”

“A reasonable time gap is must to enable the public to apply by completing the requisite formalities,” the court added.

The court further said that such reasonable period may differ in different kinds of auction and an universal time period may not be laid down by it, 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 counsel for petitioner highlighted that due to lack of wide publicity there were only two participants. The court said:

"The question is not, who could have participated or could not have participated, in-spite of a reasonable period notice through publication in the newspapers, but, 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."

While quashing the auction, the court said, “Consequently, newspaper publication in terms of Rule 7, can afford a reasonable period of 14 days between the newspaper publication date and the date of auction at the first call of auction, which can be very well provided in newspaper publication, so long as there is no contrary period prescribed by the Respondent either by amendment in the Rules 1968 or by government order supplementing the Rules, 1968.”

Title: Atavur Rahaman (Kamaal) v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors

Click Here To Read/Download Order