Dismissed

Madurai Pandiyan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC9 Jan 2017WP(MD)/12952/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition seeking directions against the TASMAC authorities for not issuing application forms for snack vending. The court observed that the tender period had expired and that the bidder had been allotted one shop, finding nothing left for adjudication and closing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was closed as nothing survived for further adjudication; petitioner advised to approach the concerned respondent later if needed.

Madurai Pandiyan Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.01.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.12952 of 2015

¶7

and MP(MD)No.2 of 2015

¶8

Madurai Pandiyan ... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶11

The Managing Director, Office of the Managing Director, TASMAC Ltd., 4^th Floor, CMDA Tower-II, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 3. The District Manager, Office of the District Manager, TASMAC, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to take necessary action against the respondent no.3 for his illegal act regarding non issuing of application forms for sell snacks and collect emply bottles in TASMAC Shop Nos.11822, 11825 and 11830 in Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District by accepting his request letter along with demand drafts dated 15.07.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For R1 : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian Spl. Govt. Pleader For R2 & R3 : Mr.M.Muniyasamy

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nos.1 and 2 to take necessary action against the 3^rd respondent for his illegal act regarding non issuing of application forms to sell

¶16

¶17

snacks and collect empty bottles in TASMAC Shop Nos.11822, 11825 and 11830 in Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District by accepting his request letter along with demand drafts dated 15.07.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit

¶19

that the period of tender is for one year, i.e., from 2015 to 2016 and the period has already expired. He would further submit that out of three shops, the petitioner was a successful bidder in respect of one shop and was allotted the said shop and the said period is also over.

¶20

In view of the above submission, this Court is of the view

¶21

that nothing survives for further adjudication in this case. Hence, this petition is closed and it is open to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondent at a later point of time, if similar situation occurs. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

To:

¶27

The Principal Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶28

The Managing Director, Office of the Managing Director, TASMAC Ltd., 4^th Floor, CMDA Tower-II, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶29

The District Manager, Office of the District Manager, TASMAC, Virudhunagar District.

¶30

- 1 CC TO Mr.R.ALAGUMANI, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 1860

¶31

¶32

TE/PM-PN/SAR-III : 16/02/2017 : 2P/5C

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.12952 of 2015 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2015 09.01.2017

Madurai Pandiyan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madurai Pandiyan v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

V.Arasan, S/O.Vaiyapuri, Vs the Secretary to Government

P.Sivamurugan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Jayabalan, Vs the Managing Director

T. Sugumar, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Arunprakash, Vs the Inspector of Police

Kavitha, Vs the Inspector of Police