Disposed

R.Thatchinamoorthy v. the Dean

Madras HC1 Jun 2017WP(MD)/2474/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Director writ petition seeking direction to issue work order to petitioner for waste disposal. Court directed respondent to consider petitioner's representation regarding cancellation and pass orders on merits within four weeks under the Tamil Nadu Transparency In Tenders Act, 1998.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider representation and pass orders on merits within four weeks.

R.Thatchinamoorthy Vs the Dean — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.06.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.P.(MD)No.2474 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.2086 of 2017

¶4

R.Thatchinamoorthy : Petitioner

¶5

-Vs-

¶6

The Dean, Government Medical College, Thanjavur. : Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue work order to the petitioner for taking waste Hypo-sollution.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.M.Alagathevan, Special Government Pleader ********** O R D E R

¶9

The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue work order to the petitioner for taking waste Hypo-sollution and pass such further orders.

¶10

According to the petitioner, the respondent issued a tender for sale of waste Hypo-sollution by tender notice dated 03.01.2017. As per the tender notice, auction was conducted on 25.01.2017. The petitioner and two others submitted tender. Subsequently, the petitioner was declared as successful bidder and his amount of Rs.55,125/- was declared as highest bid amount. The respondent has also received the entire bid amount on the same day and informed the petitioner that work order will be issued to him at the earliest.

¶11

The only grievance of the petitioner is that even after receiving the entire bid amount, the respondent has not issued the work order and, therefore, he made a representation on 01.02.2017. Since no favorable order was passed, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition.

¶12

Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Section 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency In Tenders Act, 1998 mandates the tender accepting authority to conduct negotiation, if there is any objection from the other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ participants. However, in this case, the respondent, without conducting any negotiation, has cancelled the tender of the petitioner and tried to bring it for re-tender.

¶13

¶14

Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader, by referring to the counter filed by the respondent, would submit that the petitioner has quoted Rs.25/- per litre for waste Hyposolution. But the objectors were ready to pay Rs.50/- to Rs.60/per litre for waste Hypo-solution. In such a situation, the Government will get double the rate.

¶15

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader, this Court directs the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.02.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, taking into consideration Section 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency In Tenders Act, 1998.

¶16

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶18

/ True Copy /

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S.)

¶20

¶21

The Dean, Government Medical College, Thanjavur.

¶22

+1 CC TO MR.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE, SR NO.58048

¶23

+1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR NO.58040

¶24

PSD/SML

¶25

MAS/KKR/SAR2:08.06.2017:2P-4C

¶26

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.2474 of 2017 Dated: 01.06.2017

¶27

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

R.Thatchinamoorthy v. the Dean

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Thatchinamoorthy v. the Dean

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

Case details

Similar cases

Muthaiah, Aged 29 Yrs Vs State Rep.by

Dart Industries Inc. Vs Cello Plastotech

Tvl. Madras Steels and Tubes, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.Pandiammal, Vs the District Collector

Kasiraj, Vs the Regional Manager

Santhanam Vs the Branch Manager Indian Bank