Writ petition challenging rejection of tender application and sanction of work order was closed as the work had already been executed by the successful bidder pending the petition.
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.
WP(MD)No.2304 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.2304 of 2018
and W.M.P(MD).Nos.3455, 2511 and 2512 of 2018
S.Arumugam .. Petitioner
vs.
1/5
WP(MD)No.2304 of 2018
5.P.Muniyandi .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the tender ID:2017-MAWS80630-1 in the third respondent Municipality as per the e-tender notice ROC.No.387/2017/E1 dated 06.12.2017 and the sanctioned work order issued by the third respondent in favour of the fifth respondent vide No.ROC.No.387/17/E1 dated 06.12.2017 and quash the same as illegal and void and thereby, directing the third respondent to make this petitioner as a qualified bidder under provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Act, 1998 and Rules.
For Petitioner : Mr.F.X.Eugene For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam Government Advocate for R1, R2 and R4 Mr.M.Raja Rajan for R3
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the rejection of application
made by the petitioner for tender work in the third respondent Municipality and the sanctioned work order issued by the third respondent vide ROC.No.387/17/E1 dated 06.12.2017 in favour of the fifth respondent, and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to make the petitioner as qualified bidder under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Act, 1998.
2/5
WP(MD)No.2304 of 2018
the third respondent Municipality. However, his application was rejected by the third respondent, as against which, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
appearing for the third respondent submits that pending this Writ Petition, Work Order was issued to the successful bidder and the work has also been executed.
third respondent, nothing survives for adjudication in this Writ Petition.
costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 23.11.2023 NCC : Yes / No (1/3) Internet : Yes ssb
3/5
WP(MD)No.2304 of 2018
To
4/5
WP(MD)No.2304 of 2018
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ssb
WP(MD)No.2304 of 2018
23.11.2023 (1/3)
5/5
S. Arumugam
The Regional Director of Municipal Administration
The Regional Executive Officer
The Commissioner, Ambasamudram Municipality
The Municipal Engineer
P. Muniyandi
B. Pugalendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
