Dismissed

N.S.v.P.v.Natarajan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC9 Nov 2020WP(MD)/15766/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the allotment of solar light supply work without a tender. The Court examined the report and held that a valid tender procedure was followed and the highest quoted amount was awarded, dismissing the unfair advantage claim.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition praying for cancellation of tender work and fresh tender is dismissed along with the connected miscellaneous petition.

N.S.v.P.v.Natarajan Vs the Commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15766 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.11.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶8

W.P(MD)No.15766 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD)No.13208 of 2020

N.S.V.P.V.Natarajan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner,

Town Panchayat,

MRC Nagar, Raja Annamamalaipuram,

¶15

Chennai – 27.

¶16

2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶17

3.The Assistant Director, Town Panchayat, Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District.

¶18

4.The Executive Officer, Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.

¶19

5.The ESSARES Treaders, No.35, East Hanumantharayan Kovil Street, 1^st Floor, Near Central Cinema, Madurai – 625 001. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.D.Anbarasu For Respondent : Mr.J.Padmavadhi Devi, Nos.1 to 3 Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.G.Arjunan, No.4 Government Advocate

¶20

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

¶21

1/3

¶22

W.P(MD)No.15766 of 2020

¶23

ORDER

¶24

[Order of the Court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. ]

¶25

The writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus, to direct the 4^th respondent to cancel the tender work allotted to the 5^th respondent and to conduct a fresh tender.

¶26

2.According to the petitioner, without conducting any tender, the 5^th respondent has been given work for the supply of solar lights. Moreover, the cost of a solar light is only Rs.60,000/-. But a solar light is supplied for Rs.1,50,000/- by the 5^th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation on 21.10.2020 to the 4^th respondent in this connection. Since neither it was disposed of nor was any reply sent, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶27

3.Heard Mr.D.Anbarasu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.G.Arjunan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.4.

¶28

4.A perusal of the report, dated 07.11.2020 filed by the 4^th respondent would show that for the supply of the street solar lights, a Tender Notification was issued in a Tamil Daily, namely, Dinamani on 19.03.2020. Quotations were received on 23.07.2020 from various organisations. One Rajalakshmi Agencies, Madurai has quoted the lowest amount and therefore, they have been given the tender for the supply of the street solar lights for the year 2020-2021. Further, with regard to the averment that when the price of a solar light is only Rs.60,000/-, the same is procured for Rs.1,50,000/- is concerned, it is stated in the report that what is available for Rs.50,000/- is a single leaf solar light, whereas, the solar light supplied by Rajalakshmi Agencies is two leaves solar light and therefore, the cost is more.

¶29

5.In view of the above, it is clear that the 4^th respondent has floated a tender notification and after receiving quotations from various organisations, the tender for the supply of the solar lights was given to one Rajalakshmi Agencies, Madurai and the 5^th respondent has not been allotted with any tender work as alleged by the petitioner. Without even ascertaining the facts properly, the writ petitioner has rushed to this Court. This writ petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

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

¶31

2/3

¶32

W.P(MD)No.15766 of 2020

¶33

6.In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶36

// True Copy //

¶37

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶38

dsk To 1.The Commissioner, Town Panchayat, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamamalaipuram, Chennai – 27. 2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3.The Assistant Director, Town Panchayat, Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai District. 4.The Executive Officer, Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District. +1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-21744[F] dated 10/11/2020 )

¶39

W.P(MD)No.15766 of 2020 09.11.2020 SJ(CO) TR(26.11.2020) 3P 6C

¶40

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

¶41

3/3

N.S.v.P.v.Natarajan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.S.v.P.v.Natarajan v. the Commissioner

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

S.Sheeju Selva Roji, Vs S.Jasmine

A.Sehar Vs the Commissioner

V. Muthupandian Vs the Universities Grants Commission

P.Rathinam Vs State of Tamil Nadu

P.L.Narayanan Vs the Authorized Officer

The Principal Chief Commissioner, Vs M/s.Anbu Motors