Disposed

G.Masilamani v. The District Collector

Madras HC29 Mar 2023WP/9549/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenges public tender awards in East Thirunavalur Panchayat Union, alleging collusion between a local councillor and his son. The court directed the District Collector to conduct an enquiry into the contract awards and initiate appropriate action within two months.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent (District Collector) directed to initiate appropriate actions within two months regarding the enquiry into tenders.

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

¶1

W.P.No.9549 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.9549 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.9604 of 2023

G.Masilamani

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Kallakurichi District.

¶12

2.The Block Development Officer, Thirunavalur Panchayat Union, Kallakurichi District.

¶13

3.The Chairman, Thirunavalur Panchayat Union, Thirunavalur, Kallakurichi District.

¶14

4.G.R.Vasanthavel

¶15

5.Rajasekar ..Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 st respondent to recall all the tender works called for in the jurisdiction East Thirunavalur Panchayat

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.9549 of 2023

¶20

Union, Kallakurichi District consequently direct to float fresh tender within a time frame by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 18.02.2023.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Kumaravel Additional Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the 1 st respondent to recall all the tender works called for in the jurisdiction East Thirunavalur Panchayat Union, Kallakurichi District consequently direct to float fresh tender within a time frame by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 18.02.2023.

¶24

The petitioner states that he is a Class I Contractor doing several Government Contract works in Kallakurichi District. The petitioner is a registered Clause I Contractor and the fourth respondent is the elected District Councilor of the East Thirunavalur Panchayat Union, Thirunavalur, Kallakurichi District. The fifth respondent is the son of the 4^th respondent, who is also Class I Contractor and registered his name in the District Level Contractor list at Kallakurichi District.

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.9549 of 2023

¶28

East Thirunavalur Panchayat Union consists of 22 Village

¶29

Panchayats and in the said Panchayats, many tender works are called for by the first respondent through the 2^nd respondent. The 5^th respondent being the son of the 4^th respondent, is not entitled to participate in the tender called for within the jurisdiction of the 4^th respondent. However, the 4^th respondent participated in all the tenders called for by the respondents 1 to 3 in East Thirunavalur Panchayat Union and was declared as L-1 Successful bidder.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the 5^th

¶31

respondent alone is the beneficiary in respect of the contract works and the other contractors are unable to compete on account of the fact that the contracts are awarded on extraneous considerations and pertinently, the 5^th respondent is the son of 4^th respondent, who is the Councillor. Since the allegations are serious in nature, the 1^st respondent / District Collector, Kallakurichi District, is directed to conduct an enquiry regarding the tenders called for and in the matter of award of contract and initiate all appropriate actions in the manner known to law.

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.9549 of 2023

¶35

The petitioner has already submitted a representation, setting aside

¶36

the allegations in this regard and the said representation also shall be

¶37

considered.

¶38

The 1^st respondent / District Collector, Kallakurichi District is directed to initiate all appropriate action within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶40

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

29.03.2023

¶42

Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes

¶43

kak

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.9549 of 2023

¶47

¶48

1.The District Collector, Kallakurichi District.

¶49

2.The Block Development Officer, Thirunavalur Panchayat Union, Kallakurichi District.

¶50

3.The Chairman, Thirunavalur Panchayat Union, Thirunavalur, Kallakurichi District.

¶51

5/6

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.9549 of 2023

¶54

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶55

kak

¶56

W.P.No.9549 of 2023

¶57

29.03.2023

¶58

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.Masilamani v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Masilamani 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

M/s.Tamil Nadu fly Ash Bricks Vs Union of India

K.Venkat Rao, Vs The General Manager

R.Veeralakshmi Vs State , rep. by Secretary to Govt.

K.Bharathi Vs the Tiruttani Cooperative

D.Sumathi Vs Arumugham

Bangalore T.a.Vaiyapuri Chettiar Vs The Commissioner