Dismissed

M.Mohamed Ismail v. The Municipal Commissioner Administration

Madras HC17 Aug 2020WP/10801/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged tender notifications under the package system violating a Government stand. The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was eligible to participate and could not represent other small contractors.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of lack of locus standi of the petitioner.

M.Mohamed Ismail Vs The Municipal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P Nos.10801 & 10906 of 2020

¶6

and W.M.P.Nos.13117, 13119, 13246 & 13250 of 2020

¶7

M.Mohamed Ismail
S/o.S.Mohammed Hanifa,
270A, Gandhi Nagar,
Attur Town, Salem District
Tamil Nadu – 636 102. ...Petitioner in
both Wps.
vs.
1.The Municipal Commissioner Admisitration cum
Chief Engineer,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
MRC Nagar, Santhome, Chennai-26.
2.The Regional Municipal Director,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Salem Zone, Arisipalayam,
Salem – 636 009.
3.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Salem District. ...Respondents 1 to 3
in both Wps.
4.The Commissioner,
Attur Municipality,
Attur Taluk, Salem District. ...4 th Respondent in
WP.10801 of 2020
5.The Commissioner,
Narasingapuram Municipality,
Attur Taluk, Salem District. ...4 th Respondent in
WP.10906 of 2020
Prayer in W.P.No.10801 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ
of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the
fourth respondent Tender Notification dated 29.07.2020 made in
ROC.No.1364/2020/E1 which is published in “Indian Express News
Paper” dated 31.07.2020, quash the same and consequently direct
the fourth respondent to issue fresh Tender Notification and
forbearing the fourth respondent from issuing Tender
Notification under the Package System.

¶8

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

¶9

Prayer in W.P.No.10906 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the fourth respondent Tender Notification dated 27.07.2020 made in Na.Ka.No.974/2020/A4, quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to issue fresh Tender Notification and forbearing the fourth respondent from issuing fresh Tender Notification under the Package System.

¶10

COMMON ORDER

¶11

Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the tender notification issued by the forth respondent, wherein a package wise bid has been invited from Class 1 contractors.

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner in both the writ petitions is that the package tender system prevents small contractors from participating in various works since all the works are consolidated and made as a package. On an earlier occasion, a statement was made by the Government to the effect that package system has been dispensed with. Therefore, according to the petitioner the fourth respondent, much against the stand taken by the Government, has again resorted to package tender system.

¶13

Mr.Mauriya, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent submitted that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the tender notice issued by the fourth respondent Municipality. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner and his father are Class 1 contractors and the father of the petitioner has already submitted an application to participate in the bid in both the packages and simultaneously the son has moved the writ petitions challenging the tender notification. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not been prevented from participating in the tender process and therefore the petitioner cannot be called as aggrieved person.

¶14

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

¶15

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and materials available on record.

¶16

The only ground on which the writ petitions have been filed before this Court is that each small works must be allotted to various small contractors and it should not be consolidated into a package whereby it will benefit only a single contractor. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent issued a tender notification under two packages of different works and this goes against the statement made by the Government before this Court to the effect that the package tender system has been dispensed with.

¶17

6.This Court would have appreciated the ground raised by the petitioner if any of the small contractors had approached this Court questioning the tender notification. In this case the petitioner is eligible to participate in the tender and his father has already submitted an application to participate in the tender. Therefore the petitioner does not have the locus standi to challenge the tender notification issued by the fourth respondent and this Court cannot convert this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation and allow the petitioner to plead on behalf of the small contractors. A writ of certiorari cannot be issued and the tender notification cannot be interfered on this ground.

¶18

This Court without going into the merits of the case, proceeds to dismiss both the writ petitions only on the ground of locus standi of the petitioner to question the tender notification issued by the fourth respondent.

¶19

8.These writ petitions are dismissed accordingly. No cost. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The Municipal Commissioner Admisitration cum Chief Engineer,

¶26

Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, MRC Nagar, Santhome, Chennai-26.

¶27

2.The Regional Municipal Director,

¶28

Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Salem Zone, Arisipalayam,

¶29

Salem – 636 009.

¶30

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

¶31

3.The District Collector, Collectorate, Salem District.

¶32

+1cc to the Government Pleader, in Sr no.26997

¶33

W.P Nos.10801 & 10906 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.13117, 13119, 13246 & 13250 of 2020

¶34

SSV (CO) RV (03/09/2020)

¶35

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

M.Mohamed Ismail v. The Municipal Commissioner Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Mohamed Ismail v. The Municipal Commissioner Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Praveen Anand Vs State Rep. by

South India Spinners Vs The Cahirman Cum Managing Director

Shoba @ Savitha @ Srimathi Vs the State Rep.by

J.Rajasekar Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Thiyagarajan Vs The Secretary

Care 4 Life Vs The Secretary to Government