Disposed

N.Rajakumar v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Nov 2016WP(MD)/11694/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a Writ Petition challenging a tender. Due to disputed allegations regarding auction conduct and a pending representation with the District Collector, the court directed the Collector to consider the representation after giving an opportunity of hearing within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

The First Respondent (District Collector) is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.07.2015 after giving an opportunity of hearing within twelve weeks.

N.Rajakumar Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED:22.11.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.11694 of 2015

¶7

and

¶8

M.P(MD)No.3 of 2015

¶9

N.Rajakumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 2. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Collector's Office, Nagercoil. 3. The Executive Officer, Thengamputhoor Town Panchayat, Thengamputhoor Post, Kanyakumari District. 4. The President, Thengamputhoor Town Panchayat, Thengamputhoor Post, Kanyakumari District. 5.N.Raghavan ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to follow the procedure as contemplated in Tamilnadu Transparencies in Tenders Act, 1988, by issuing fresh tender notification to the 21 items of work mentioned under three different heads as stated in the notice, dated 01.07.2015. For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja Government Advocate For R-3 : Mr.S.Sadeshkumar, Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R-4 : Mr.M.Saravanan For R-5 : Mr.P.Thiyagarajan for Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the tender called for by the third respondent panchayat for doing 21 items of work in the third respondent panchayat.

¶13

The main allegation of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Ward Member in the above said panchayat and he has challenged the above said auction notification on the ground that there are irregularities in conducting the public auction and without following the procedures, the third respondent conducted the auction and even in the meeting, where the proposals were approved, the petitioner did not accept the proposals, but in the Minute Books, it was recorded that the petitioner accepted the proposals. Apart from that, the fifth respondent, who was a successful bidder in the tender is the binami of the fourth respondent panchayat president. In this regard, he has made a representation to the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, on 03.07.2015. But, so far no action has been taken by the District Collector. Hence, he has filed this Writ Petition.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5.

¶15

Since the allegations made in this Writ Petitions are disputed questions with regard to conduct of auction and since the petitioner had already made a representation before the District Collector on 03.07.2015, without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 03.07.2015 and pass orders on the same, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as all the contesting parties, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the fifth respondent did not even commence the work.

¶17

However, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent disputed the same and the fifth respondent had already completed the work and is awaiting for payment and in view of the interim order granted in this Writ Petition, he is yet to receive payment.

¶18

In such circumstances, it is made clear that if the work is not completed as on today, the fifth respondent is directed not to complete the work till the enquiry completed and orders passed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the first respondent/District Collector, Kanyakumari District and if the work is completed, the fifth respondent is at liberty to proceed further.

¶19

¶20

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/

Assistant Registrar

/TRUE COPY/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The District Collector,Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶27

2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Collector's Office,Nagercoil.

¶28

3.The Executive Officer,Thengamputhoor Town Panchayat, Thengamputhoor Post,Kanyakumari District.

¶29

4.The President,Thengamputhoor Town Panchayat, Thengamputhoor Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶30

+1cc to M/s.Niranjan S.Kumar, Advocate, in SR No.71586.

¶31

+1cc to M/s.P.T.Ramesh Raja, Advocate, in SR No.71845.

¶32

+1cc to M/s.R.Subramanian, Advocate, in SR No.71846.

¶33

W.P(MD)No.11694 of 2015 22.11.2016

¶34

¶35

msm/ss3/sar3/05.12.16/p3/8c

¶36

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

N.Rajakumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Rajakumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Sulochana, Vs the Chief Administrator

V.Maduraiveeran Vs the District Registrar

T.Rathinasamy, Vs the District Collector

Manickam Vs the Commissioner of Police

P. Manickavasagam, Vs the District Collector

Muthulakshmi, W/O.Murugavel Vs the District Collector