Dismissed

A. Suyambulingam, v. the Managing Director

Madras HC13 Mar 2013WP(MD)/1792/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court heard two writ petitions demanding the issuance of a tender schedule under the Tender Transparency Act, 1998. As the petitioners did not appear and the respondents admitted that schedules were issued and the petitioners were unsuccessful bidders, the court dismissed the petitions as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

No costs. Writ Petitions dismissed as infructuous. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

A. Suyambulingam, Vs the Managing Director — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 13.03.2013

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.1792 & 1793 of 2013 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2013

¶7

A.Suyambulingam .. Petitioner in W.P.No.1792/2013 K.Balamurugan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.1793/2013

¶8

¶9

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), C.M.D.A. Tower-II,

¶10

4^th Floor, Chennai – 8.

¶11

2.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), No.104C, SIPCOT Complex,

¶12

Madurai Bye-Pass Road, Thoothukudi – 628 008. .. Respondent in both W.P's

¶13

Common Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to issue tender schedule to the petitioner in terms of the tender invitation dated 05.01.2013 and consequently direct the second respondent to conduct the tender process strictly in terms of Section 8 of Tender Transparency Act, 1998.

¶14

For Petitioners : No appearance (In both W.P's) For Respondents : Mr.M.Muniyasamy (In both W.P's)

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

When these Writ Petitions were taken up hearing, there was no representation for the petitioners.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that tender schedule was given to the petitioners in these Writ

¶18

¶19

Petitions and tender was also finalised and the petitioners were not successful biders.

¶20

The Writ Petitions were filed for issuance of tender schedule to the petitioners in terms of the tender advertisement, dated 05.01.2013 and as per the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents, tender schedules were given to the petitioners and the petitioners also participated in the tender and they were not successful, the Writ Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar(LA)

/True Copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), C.M.D.A. Tower-II, 4^th Floor, Chennai – 8.

¶27

2.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), No.104C, SIPCOT Complex, Madurai Bye-Pass Road, Thoothukudi – 628 008.

¶28

ps RL/3c - 1/4/2013

¶29

W.P(MD)Nos.1792 & 1793 of 2013

¶30

13.03.2013

¶31

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

A. Suyambulingam, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Suyambulingam, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sunpak, Vs the Commissioner of Central

Dr.M.Balasubramanian, Vs the District Collector

R.Rajendran, Vs the Conseravator of Forest

M. Ganesan, Vs the District Collector

Dr.P.Anandaraj, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

K.Chandra Segaran, Vs the Director of School