Petitioner challenged tender notifications under Article 226. The court was informed that the work order was already granted to a third party. Consequently, the petition was closed without further orders, allowing the petitioner liberty to challenge the work order separately.
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: 25.10.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.(MD) No.21757 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.19681 and 19682 of 2018
V.R.Swaminathan ... Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 2.The Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. 3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Collectorate, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. 4.The Block Development Officer,(Panchayath) Papanasam Panchayath Union, Papanasam, Thanjavur District. 5.The Special Officer, Melakabisthalam Panchayath, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District.
6.The Special Officer, Chakarapalli Panchayath, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District. 7.The Special Officer, Govindanattuseri Panchayath, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District.
8.T.Anbalagan 9.Satheesh 10.Manivannan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned tender notifications in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Na.Ka.No.1198/2018/U dated 19.09.2018 of the 5th respondent, Na.Ka.No.498/2018/U dated 19.09.2018 of the 6th respondent and
2
Na.Ka.No.2031/2017/A1 dated 19.09.2018 of the 7th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 7 to conduct the tenders after issuing tender schedules to the petitioner and in a fair and transparent manner.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For R1to R3 : Mr.S.Angappan Government Advocate For R4 to R7 : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate
O R D E R
When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the work order has already been given to the third party.
2.In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, no further order is necessary in this writ petition. Hence, this Writ Petition is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the work order given to the third party, if he is so advised. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/ Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)
To
1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 2.The Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. 3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Collectorate, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. 4.The Block Development Officer,(Panchayath) Papanasam Panchayath Union, Papanasam, Thanjavur District. 5.The Special Officer, Melakabisthalam Panchayath, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District. 6.The Special Officer, Chakarapalli Panchayath, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District.
3
7.The Special Officer, Govindanattuseri Panchayath, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District.
+1cc to Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth, Advocate, SR.No.91837
W.P.(MD) No.21757 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.19681 and 19682 of 2018 25.10.2018
ns KK/RP/SAR-1/30.11.2018/3P-9C
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed seeking quashing of tender notifications should be closed given that the work order has already been given to the third party.
V.R. Swaminathan
The District Collector, Thanjavur District
The Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Thanjavur
The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Collectorate, Thanjavur
The Block Development Officer, Papanasam Panchayath Union
The Special Officer, Melakabisthalam Panchayath
V. Parthiban
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
