Dismissed

G.Sekar v. The District Collector/

Madras HC6 Jan 2023WP/10977/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging removal of a respondent from the contractor list specifically made infructuous as the relevant contract had been completed by 2023. The court cautioned officials to strictly follow tender rules.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the proceedings became infructuous due to completion of the contract work. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

G.Sekar Vs The District Collector/ — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10977 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No. 10977 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.9569 & 9570 of 2016

¶7

G.Sekar .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The District Collector/Chairman District Rural Development Agency Villupuram Villupuram District.

¶10

2.The Block Development Officer/Commissioner Block Panchayat Melmalaiyanur Panchayat Union Melmalaiyanur Taluk Villupuram District

¶11

3.S.M.Elumalai .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.C1/1354/2015 and in Na.Ka.No.C1/1354/2015 both dated 10.08.2015 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as void, illegal and erroneous and consequently direct the second respondent to take appropriate action as against the third respondent in terms of tender rules.

¶13

1/5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.10977 of 2016

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan for R1 Additional Government Pleader Mr.K.J.Sivakumar for R2 Mr.R.Rajarajan for R3

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.C1/1354/2015 and in Na.Ka.No.C1/1354/2015 both dated

¶19

10.08.2015 on the file of the 2^nd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to take appropriate action as against the third respondent in terms of tender rules.

¶20

The only grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent name

¶21

has been removed from the listed contractor. However, he has been given a

¶22

contract. Hence, the petition.

¶23

3.When the case was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶24

submitted that since the contract period is of the year 2015, work has been completed. Now, the relief sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous.

¶25

2/5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.10977 of 2016

¶28

Such view of the matter, this writ petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. It is made clear that hereafter, the official respondents must follow the rules properly while calling for tender by strictly adhering to the Rules governing the tender.

¶29

06.01.2023

¶30

dhk Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No

¶31

¶32

1.The District Collector/Chairman District Rural Development Agency Villupuram Villupuram District.

¶33

2.The Block Development Officer/Commissioner Block Panchayat Melmalaiyanur Panchayat Union Melmalaiyanur Taluk Villupuram District

¶34

3/5

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.10977 of 2016

¶37

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶38

dhk

¶39

W.P.No. 10977 of 2016

¶40

06.01.2023

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4/5

W.P.No.10977 of 2016

5/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.Sekar v. The District Collector/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sekar v. The District Collector/

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

K.Vasudevan Vs The District Collector

G.Velu, S/o.Govindasamy Reddy, Vs The Secretary

Tmt. a.Sudha Arul, Vs The Inspector of Panchayats /

Wasila Banu Vs The Commissioner

Amutha Muniyan Vs The Chief Secretary

N.Jothiraj, Vs The Commissioner