Petitioner filed writ for quashing a fresh tender notification after earlier challenge to cancelled tender was pending and refund of deposited amount remained outstanding.
Relief granted to authorities to dispose of petition; petitioner advised to participate in fresh tender; authorities directed to refund previously deposited amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.07.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P.(MD)No.12374 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.9523 and 9524 of 2017
Deepam Trust No.3/30, Main Road, Nenmeni – 626 202, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, Rep. by its Managging Trustee, K.Thangapandian ... Petitioner
Vs.
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the records pertaining to the impugned tender notification issued by the 4th and 5th respondents in Na.Ka.No.670/16 A.6 dated 15.06.2017 quash the same as illegal.
2
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Government Advocate for R.1 to R.3
Mr.S.Manohar for R.4
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned tender notification issued by the respondents 4 and 5 in Na.Ka.No.670/16 A6, dated 15.06.2017 and quash the same as illegal.
4.1. The petitioner is the Managing Trustee of Deepam Trust and is claimed to have been implementing various projects of uplifting the weaker sections of the society, in particular, women. The third respondent called for tender for cleaning and sanitary work for three years as per his proceedings dated 28.06.2015 and he, having been quoted lowest price, got selected.
4.2. Thereafter, he remitted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by way of Demand Draft in favour of the third respondent. Despite the same, work order has not been issued to the petitioner, as a result of which, he moved this Court by filing W.P(MD)No.18258 of 2015 before this Court.
4.3. This Court, by order dated 08.10.2015, dismissed the said writ petition as infructuous, while recording the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader, who submitted that the entire tender notification was cancelled by the first respondent by his proceedings dated 07.09.2015. Challenging the same, the petitioner also filed W.P.No.35002 of 2015 before the Principal Seat of this Court and it is pending.
4.4. Meanwhile, the respondents 4 and 5 called for a fresh tender by the impugned tender notification dated 15.06.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the first respondent rejected the confirmation of tender issued in favour of the petitioner by his proceedings dated 07.09.2015 on
3
the ground of violation of provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, the very same tender has been re-issued by way of the impugned order in the present writ petition. He further submits that the petitioner also challenged the proceedings of the first respondent dated 07.09.2015 before the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.No.35002 of 2015 and admittedly, the same is pending.
“2. When this matter came up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that since the tender was not conducted as per Tender Transparency Act, the entire tender proceedings had been cancelled by the first respondent, vide order dated 07.09.2015 and as such the auction of issuing work order does not arise in this case and he has also produced a copy of the same.
4
participate in the fresh tender process, if he so desires and pursue the same in accordance with law. Needless to say, the authorities concerned shall comply with the earlier order of this Court dated 08.10.2015 passed in W.P(MD)No.18258 of 2015 in respect of the plea of the petitioner for refund of the amount already deposited by him during the earlier tender process, at the earliest.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI)
/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To:
+One cc to Mr.S.Manohar, Advocate, SR.No.63735
+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.63477 ar/rsb RL/6C/4P/KP/SAR1/12/7/2017
| W.P.(MD) | No.12374 | of 2017 |
|---|---|---|
| and | ||
| W.M.P.(MD)Nos.9523 | and 9524 | of 2017 |
04.07.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should participate in the fresh tender process given the pending challenge to the earlier cancellation order?
Whether the authorities must comply with the earlier order directing the refund of the deposited amount?
Deepam Trust No.3/30, Main Road, Nenmeni – 626 202, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, Rep. by its Managing Trustee, K.Thangapandian
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
The Additional Commissioner (General), Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai
The Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukovil, Irukkankudi
The Hereditary Trustees, Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukovil, Irukkankudi
R.Mahadevan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
R.Mahadevan
Parties & counsel
