Partly allowed

Kalidasan, S/O.Muthukuri, v. the District Collector

Madras HC7 Sept 2011WP(MD)/10115/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, to consider the petitioner's telegraphic representation regarding the re-tender for a TASMAC shop licence within two weeks and pass appropriate orders without recording detailed findings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Collector to consider the petitioner's telegraphic representation dated 29.08.2011 and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

Kalidasan, S/O.Muthukuri, Vs the District… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(md).No.10115 of 2011

Kalidasan

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, O/o, the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶7

2.The Southern Regional Manager, O/o Southern Regional Manager, Shenoy Nagar, Madurai.

¶8

3.The District Manager,

¶9

Office of District Manager, TamilNadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, TASMAC, Ramanathapuram District. : Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.08.2011 through the telegram and consequently direct the respondents to conduct the re-tender in Na.Ka.No.Nil dated 09.08.2011 in respect of Shop No.6833.

¶11

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Senthil Kumar

¶12

For Respondent No.3:Mr.M.Muniasamy, Standing Counsel for TASMAC

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Mr.Muniasamy, learned standing counsel for TASMAC takes notice for the 3^rd respondent.

¶15

2.It is the grievance of the petitioner that though, he has approached the respondent for issuance of tender schedule, for the grant of licence for the bar attached to TASMAC shop No.6833, Ramnad District, the same was refused and therefore the petitioner was constrained to approach this court and filed W.P.No.9719 of 2011.

¶16

3.It is the further contention of the petitioner that as per the direction granted by this Court on 25.08.2011 to issue the tender schedule, the third respondent issued the tender schedule. But when he approached the third respondent Office to submit the tender schedule, he was restrained at the front gate of the Office of the District Manager, TASMAC, Ramnad District and could not submit the same.

¶17

4.Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has sent a telegraphic representation dated 29.08.2011. According to the petitioner, the respondents are bound to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

¶19

5.Without making any observation or recording any finding on the averments, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the District Collector, Ramnad District, the first respondent herein to consider the telegraphic representation dated 29.08.2011 and pass appropriate orders on merits within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

6.This Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

¶26

1.The District Collector, O/o, the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶27

2.The Southern Regional Manager, O/o Southern Regional Manager,

¶28

Shenoy Nagar, Madurai.

¶29

3.The District Manager,

¶30

Office of District Manager, TamilNadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, TASMAC, Ramanathapuram District.

¶31

¶32

GH : 22.09.2011 : 2p/4c

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.10115 of 2011

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Kalidasan, S/O.Muthukuri, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalidasan, S/O.Muthukuri, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Stephen Mascarenhas Vs the Commissioner

M/S Arss Infrastructure Vs the District Collector

U.S.Gunasekaran Vs the Chief Engineer (Personal)

R. Renganathan, Vs the Deputy Collector /

Dharmaraj Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S. Nallamuthu, Vs the Director of Elementary