Partly allowed

Parvatham v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Jun 2017WP/10336/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging the allotment of a tender without due procedure. The High Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.04.2017 and pass orders on merits with notice to all parties within eight weeks.

Parvatham Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.10336 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.11267 of 2017

¶6

Parvatham ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. 2. The Block Development Officer, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶7

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District. 4. The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District. 5. Mr. Purusothaman ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 10.4.2017.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Gunaseelan For Respondents : Mr.R.A.S. Senthilvel, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4

¶10

The sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 3 and 4 have allotted a tender in favour of the fifth respondent without following the due procedure which also prevented the petitioner from taking part in the auction. The

¶11

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

¶12

petitioner has made a representation to the first respondent on 10.04.2017 in this regard. Seeking consideration of the same in a time bound manner, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶13

2.Heard Mr.S.Gunaseelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶14

3.Considering the relief sought for by the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.04.2017 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after due notice to the petitioner and the fifth respondent apart from the official respondents, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS V )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
mmi
To

¶16

1.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶17

The Block Development Officer, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶18

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶19

The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District. +1cc to Government Pleader sr.40306

¶20

+1cc to Mr.S.Gunaseelan,Advocate sr.39885

¶21

W.P.No.10336 of 2017 ss(15/6/2017)

¶22

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

Parvatham v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvatham 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

Marimuthu Vs S.Ragavan

R.Vijayarangan Vs Muthazhagam

Nagaraj @ Nagarajan Vs P.J.Lakshman

R.Anjalam, Vs The Chairman

K. Nallappan Vs The Chairman

Sree Amman Trust, Vs Erode Corporation