The High Court found the writ petition challenging a tender infructuous due to the contract period (2012-2013) having long lapsed by the time of hearing, noting subsequent tenders were likely floated. The petition was dismissed.
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions were 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 : 29.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
WP NO.13974 OF 2012 AND MP NOS.5, 6 AND 7 OF 2012
Hi Power Enterprises Represented by its Manager R.Suguna No.17/35, O.S. Building, E.K.Guru Street, Periamedu, Chennai - 600 003. ...Petitioner
Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government Family Welfare & Health Department Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Director of Medical Education Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010. 3. The Dean Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital Chennai - 600 003. 4. Royal Security Force and Marketing No.10/12, Anderson Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023. (R4 - Impleaded as per order dated 11.06.2012 in M.P.No.4/2012 in WP No.13974/2012) ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records of relevant documents of tender pertaining to impugned contract order given by the 3rd respondent in the impugned Tender Na.Ka.No.5311/P&D/2012 dated 24.04.2012 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to call the fresh tender by following the tender procedure which framed by 3rd respondent and till the fresh tender procedure completed, previous status quo may be maintained.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Respondents : Ms.Senthil Selvi 1 to 3 Government Advocate
O R D E R
The tender floated by the third respondent in Proceedings Na.Ka.No.5311/P&D1/2012 dated 24.04.2012 was challenged by the petitioner.
2.The writ petitioner has challenged the tender notification on the ground that the bidder shall have three years experience in providing contract labourers and that he shall produce proof for payment of Provident Fund and ESI to the contract workers engaged by him.
3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is noted that the contract was issued for a period between 01.05.2012 and 30.04.2013. Now we are in 2022 and after this impugned tender, several other tenders could have been floated and the contract workers could have been engaged. Considering the lapse of contract period and probability of subsequent developments, it is found that the subject matter of the writ petition has become infructuous and nothing survives for further adjudication.
4.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
TK
To
1.The Secretary to Government Family Welfare & Health Department Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of Medical Education Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010. 3.The Dean Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital Chennai - 600 003. +1cc to Government Pleader SR. No. 21686 WP NO.13974 OF 2012 PL (CO) PR (20/04/2022)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the tender procedure premised on the contract period having lapsed.
Whether the subject matter of the petition remains justiciable given the lapse of time.
Whether the order should be allowed or dismissed in view of the infructuous nature of the claim.
Hi Power Enterprises
The Secretary to Government Family Welfare & Health Department
The Director of Medical Education Kilpauk
The Dean Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital
M. Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
