Writ petition challenging order rejecting tender complaint was dismissed. Court found 6th respondent had retired from original firm in 2011 and entered new firm, satisfying tender conditions.
Writ petition dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
W.P.No.13732 of 2018 and WMP No.16200 of 2018
C. P. Senthilkumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in letter No.2893/TC/2017, dated 25.04.2018 on the file of the 2nd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to blacklist the respondents 6 and 7 preventing them from participating in the tenders of Highways Department either in individual name or part of any firm.
For Petitioner : Mr. N. Sreenivasalu
For Respondents : Mr. P. Ganesan, AGP, for R1 to R5.
: Mr.R.N.Amarnath, for R6,
: Mr. C.Johnson,
for R7
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of rejection passed by the second respondent .
petition in W.P.No.26835 of 2017, seeking a direction to consider his representation and this Court by an order dated 07.02.2018, directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass suitable orders, after hearing the parties. Pursuant to the same, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order stating that 6th respondent already got released from the 7th respondent partnership firm and he started own partnership firm and he is no way connected with the 7th respondent. The respondents 6 and 7 are two separate partnership firms and there is no infirmity to him in participating in the tenders. Now, challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner got an information from the Right Information Act stating that from the year 2015, both the companies are participating in the tenders. But, the petitioner is not in a position to substantiate his contention that the 6th respondent continued to be a partner in the 7th respondent firm.
7.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on records carefully.
9.The 2nd respondent, after considering the entire materials, came to a conclusion that both the respondents 6 and 7 are separate Partnership Firms and there is no impediment to the 6th respondent in participating in the tenders. In the said circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the 2nd respondent and there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mrp
To
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.21964
W.P.No.13732 of 2018
PM(CO) RGA(20/05/2022)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order accepting the release of the 6th respondent from the 7th respondent firm and permitting their separate participation in tenders suffered any infirmity.
C. P. Senthilkumar
The Principal Secretary to Government, Highways Department
M.Pandithurai
M/s. Rishi Enterprises
V.BhARIDASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
