Dismissed

M/S.Aatral Associates v. the Block Development Officer

Madras HC19 Sept 2023WP/19704/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order calling for a fresh tender. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to challenge the order as he had participated in a subsequent tender and was declared the successful bidder for three packages. The petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed without costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/S.Aatral Associates Vs the Block Development… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.19704 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.19704 of 2023

¶7

and W.M.P.Nos.18994 and 19183 of 2023

¶8

M/s.Aatral Associates a Partnership firm rep by its Managing Partner, Aatral Arasu, No.1/47, Selliamman Koil Street, Veeranam Post, Villupuram District. ... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

The Block Development Officer, Kandamangalam Panchayat Union, Villupuram District.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in the order bearing Na.Ka.No.AA3/1095/2023, dated 14.06.2023 passed by the respondent and quashing the same and directing the respondent to issue work order to the petitioner as per his bid 728651, dated 09.06.2023.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.19704 of 2023

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.K.Surendran Additional Government Pleader

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the

¶20

respondent calling for fresh tender in respect of 11 packages to be executed in the Panchayat Union.

¶21

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the respondent

¶22

filed a counter stating that the petitioner participated in the subsequent online tender and submitted his bid. The online tender was opened on 28.06.2023 and the petitioner was declared as a successful bidder insofar as three packages 4, 6 and 9 and the same were allotted to him by order dated 30.06.2023.

¶23

In view of the fact that the petitioner participated in the

¶24

subsequent tender and he was declared as successful bidder in respect of 3

¶25

packages, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the impugned order.

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.19704 of 2023

¶29

Accordingly, this writ petition is closed by recording the

¶30

statement made in the counter affidavit. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶31

19.09.2023

¶32

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No ub

¶33

¶34

The Block Development Officer, Kandamangalam Panchayat Union, Villupuram District.

¶35

3/4

¶36

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

W.P.No.19704 of 2023

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P.No.19704 of 2023

¶41

19.09.2023

¶42

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

¶43

4/4

M/S.Aatral Associates v. the Block Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Aatral Associates v. the Block Development Officer

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

T.Manimegalai Vs the Joint Registrar / Managing Director

P.Kirubakaran Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative

Mohammed Abusali Vs the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

M.Lakshmanan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Krishnan Vs the Regional Transport Officer

M/S.Hanumanthalaya Vs the Chairman