The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging a tender notice for mango plucking. The Court held the petition need not be entertained as a work order had already been issued to the third respondent on 05.10.2018.
The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
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 : 29.10.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P.[MD]No.22041 of 2018 and W.M.P.[MD]Nos.19997 & 19998 of 2018
T.Amarsingh : Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in pursuant to the impugned tender notice of the second respondent dated 20.09.2018 issued for plucking the mangoes from the Mango trees standing at Nalumavadi Village Panchayat, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District under the control of the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, directing the second respondent to conduct fresh tender proceedings following the due process of law.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mandhiralingeswaran For Respondent No.1 : Mr.S.Angappan Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
*****************
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in pursuant to the impugned tender notice of the second respondent dated 20.09.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issued for plucking the mangoes from the Mango trees standing at Nalumavadi Village Panchayat, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District under the control of the second respondent and to quash the same and
2
consequently, to direct the second respondent to conduct fresh tender proceedings following due process of law.
2.When the matter is taken up for admission today [29.10.2018], the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent would submit that already vide proceedings dated 05.10.2018, the work order has been issued to the third respondent in respect of the tender which is subject matter of the present litigation.
3.In view of the grant of work order to the third respondent as early as on 05.10.2018, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition need not be entertained.
4.The Writ Petition stands dismissed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (Writs)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
To
MR
TE/SV/SAR-2 : 28/11/2018 : 2P/5C
ORDER MADE IN
W.P.[MD]No.22041 of 2018
29.10.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the tender notice for plucking mangoes is maintainable after a work order was issued to a third respondent.
Whether this Court should entertain the writ petition despite the issuance of the work order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.Amarsingh
The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi
The Block Development Officer, Alwarthirunagari Panchayat Union
Burnaboss
V.Parthiban
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
