Dismissed

Mani Maruthu v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC23 Feb 2021WP(MD)/3406/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a tender notification affecting his weekly market lease due to COVID closure losses. Court dismissed the petition as unnecessary since an earlier related writ petition was pending and reserved for orders, which would determine the issues.

What did the court decide?

This Writ Petition is dismissed and no costs awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Mani Maruthu Vs the Secretary to Govt. — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.3406 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 23.02.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.(MD) No.3406 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2763, 2766 and 2767 of 2021

¶4

Mani Maruthu ... Petitioner -vs-

¶5

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶6

2.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat, District Collectorate, Ramnad District.

¶7

3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Kamuthi Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Kamuthi, Ramnad District.

¶8

4.The Executive Officer, Kamuthi Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Kamuthi, Ramnad District. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned tender notification dated 08.02.2021 issued by the fourth respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to extend the period of lease in favour of the petitioner in order to compensate the loss occurred due to non-functioning of weekly market due to Covid-19 within the time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S. Kumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Murugan 1 to 3 Additional Government Pleader For Respondent 4 : Mr.P.Kannithevan

¶11

ORDER

¶12

According to the petitioner, he has been working as a Contractor and has been a successful tenderer in many local bodies/Panchayats for executing various projects/works. For 2018 to 2021, the fourth respondent called for tender in which the petitioner participated and was declared as a highest bidder and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

1/3

¶14

W.P.(MD) No.3406 of 2021

¶15

tender was awarded in his favour. The work order was issued by the fourth respondent by his proceedings dated 28.03.2018. The petitioner had also deposited a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- for the period of 2018-2019 and similar amounts for the subsequent years.

¶16

2.According to the petitioner, he has been undertaking the work without any complaints, whatsoever. In view of the national lockdown in 2020, the petitioner appears to have suffered a financial loss as the project undertaken by him could not be continued due the lock-down. The petitioner’s grievance is that for 28 weeks, the weekly market was closed and therefore, he has submitted a representation on 07.12.2020 and requested the authority to extend 28 weeks in order to enable the petitioner to recover the loss suffered by him during the lock-down period.

¶17

3.The petitioner in this regard, appears to have approached this Court recently in W.P.(MD) No.1439 of 2021 against the rejection of the extension of 28 weeks sought by the petitioner. The said Writ Petition was finally heard on 29.01.2021 and the matter was also reserved for orders and the orders were not pronounced.

¶18

4.While the matter stood thus, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition challenging the notification dated 08.02.2021 of the fourth respondent proposing to conduct the auction for the years 2020-2021 in respect of four items of the work related to the weekly market for which the petitioner has sought extension of his licence period which is the subject matter of the above said Writ Petition.

¶19

5.This Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition for the simple reason that unless the orders are known pertains to the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.1439 of 2021, no orders could be passed in this matter.

¶20

6.Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that the earlier Writ Petition would very well protect the interest of the petitioner, in case the same is allowed. In which event, there may not be any necessity for filing of the present Writ Petition. The right of the petitioner and his claim as against the fourth respondent would depend on the outcome of the Writ Petition. Unless that is made known, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained at all. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to wait for the pronouncement of the orders in the Writ Petition and thereafter, he can work out his remedies in the manner known to law. Without disposal of the abovesaid Writ Petition, the present Writ Petition is a needless https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

2/3

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.3406 of 2021

¶23

multiplicity of proceedings for the same grievance of the petitioner.

¶24

7.For the above said reason, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar ()

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

¶29

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat, District Collectorate, Ramnad District.

¶30

3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Kamuthi Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Kamuthi, Ramnad District. 4.The Executive Officer, Kamuthi Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Kamuthi, Ramnad District. +1 CC to M/s.NIRANJAN.S.KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-7002[F] dated 24/02/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-7344[F] dated 25/02/2021 ) W.P.(MD) No.3406 of 2021 23.02.2021 AC(CO) KB(17.03.2021) 3P 7C

¶31

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

¶32

3/3

Mani Maruthu v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Maruthu v. the Secretary to Govt.

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar.C Vs the Vice Chancellor

Subbaraju.S Vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar University

Kalai Arasu.S Vs The Vice Chancellor

Shri.T.Paulraj Vs Tamilnadu Housing Board

Arjunan.v.K Vs the Commissioner

Kanakku Malayandi.T Vs The District Collector