Disposed

Chelladurai. K v. The Managing Director

Madras HC3 Dec 2024WP(MD)/11693/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding alleged collusion in tender awarding for 25 milk routes and pass appropriate orders within three months, holding non-consideration as dereliction of duty.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's representation dated 01.04.2024, consider it on merits after giving due opportunity, and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Chelladurai. K Vs The Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.11693 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

W.P(MD)No.11693 of 2024 and WMP(MD)No.10438 of 2024

K.Chelladurai

... Petitioner

vs.

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Nandhanam, Chennai.

¶11

The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶12

The General Manager (Aavin) Madurai District Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Sathamangalam, Madurai.

¶13

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶14

Page No.1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.11693 of 2024

¶17

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the 4^th respondent on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 01.04.2024 and consequently to appropriate decision in respect of 25 routes i.e. Route Nos.2, 3, 5, 9, 11 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 50, 54, 55, 69 and 70 without incurring any loss to Aavin.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Jeganathan For R1 to R3 : Mr.J.Devasenan, standing counsel For R4 : Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

( Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)

¶21

This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the 4^th respondent on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 01.04.2024 and consequently take a decision in respect of 25 routes i.e., Route Nos.2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 50, 54, 55, 69 and 70, without incurring any loss to Aavin.

¶22

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

¶23

Page No.2 of 6

¶24

W.P(MD)No.11693 of 2024

¶25

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 4^th respondent had called for tender for transporting milk products from Aavin Madurai to urban areas for 41 routes, of which, tenders in respect of 38 routes were accepted. Out of the 38, the petitioner was selected as L1 for four routes and the tender was finalised with excess of 10 percent from the earlier rate. However, the 4^th respondent had finalised the tender in respect of 25 routes in favour of some persons at the rate of 20% to 57% excess to the earlier rates, which results in huge loss to the Aavin. According to the petitioner, in collusion with his close associates, the 4^th respondent had finalised the tender in their favour fixing the highest rate. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation dated 01.04.2024, to the respondents 1 and 2, seeking to cancel the tender in respect of the said 25 routes and call for a new tender and finding no heed to it was paid, he has filed the present writ petition.

¶27

3. Heard both sides.

¶28

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

¶29

Page No.3 of 6

¶30

¶31

W.P(MD)No.11693 of 2024

¶32

It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of

¶33

this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶34

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 herein, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.04.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as well as all other concerned persons, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the concerned respondents to consider the same on its own merits.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 6

¶36

W.P(MD)No.11693 of 2024

¶37

7 .

¶38

7 . With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed

¶39

of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

(M.S.R, J.) (A.D.M.C, J.) 03.12.2024

¶41

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala

¶42

¶43

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶44

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

¶45

Page No.5 of 6

¶46

W.P(MD)No.11693 of 2024

¶47

M.S.RAMESH, J. and A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

¶48

bala

¶49

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.11693 of 2024 DATED : 03.12.2024

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 6

Chelladurai. K v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chelladurai. K v. The Managing Director

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

The Principal Secretary to the Government Vs Y.Suresh Kumar

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs a.Subbiah(Died)

The Joint Commissioner St Vs E Rajadurai

L.Santiagu Vs The District Collector

The Director Of Elementary Education Vs B George

Senthil @ Thileepan Sentil.T Vs the State of Tamilnadu