Dismissed

T. Sugumar, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC9 Jan 2017WP(MD)/12953/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court holder closed a writ petition seeking mandamus against the State and TASMAC for not issuing application forms. The court held that the tender period had expired, rendering the matter unsuitable for further adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; petitioner directed to approach respondent at a later point of time if similar situation occurs.

T. Sugumar, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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.12953 of 2015

¶7

and MP(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

T.Sugumar

... Petitioner

-vs-

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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 empty bottles in TASMAC Shop Nos.11831 and 11947 in Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District by accepting the petitioner's request letter along with demand drafts dated 15.07.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

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 respondent no.3 for his illegal act regarding non issuing of application forms for sell

¶18

¶19

snacks and collect empty bottles in TASMAC Shop Nos.11831 and 11947 in Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District by accepting the petitioner's request letter along with demand drafts dated 15.07.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

To:

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

1 CC TO Mr.R.ALAGUMANI, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 1859 AR TE/SV-MMS : 16/02/2017 : 2P/5C

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.12953 of 2015 and MP(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 09.01.2017

T. Sugumar, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Sugumar, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Madurai Pandiyan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Arunprakash, Vs the Inspector of Police

Kavitha, Vs the Inspector of Police