The petitioner challenged the rejection of his tender for rural development works. The court noted that the validity period for the earlier tender had lapsed and the authorities planned a fresh tender. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for a fresh tender and return of EMD deposits.
Directions to call for a fresh tender and return EMD deposits.
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.
W.P.(MD)No.7590 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.7590 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6950, 6951, 11151 & 11153 of 2024
S.Palpandi ... Petitioner
Vs.
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Fort St.George, Chennai
4.P.Karthika .... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent's rejection order of the petitioner's tender relating to
1/4
W.P.(MD)No.7590 of 2024
work in SL.Nos.386, 388 and 389 dated 11.03.2024 arising out of the Tender in Na.Ka.No.2526/2024/D7 dated 29.02.2024 quash the same and further direct the respondents to allot the said work to the petitioner as per his tender.
For Petitioner : Ms.V.Janaki Devi For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, Govt. Advocate for R3
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent's rejection order of the petitioner's tender relating to work in SL.Nos.386, 388 and 389 dated 11.03.2024 arising out of the Tender in Na.Ka.No.2526/2024/D7 dated 29.02.2024 quash the same and further direct the respondents to allot the said work to the petitioner as per his tender.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent, on instructions, submits that since the six months period of earlier tender have already been lapsed, the third respondent is decided to call for a new tender in accordance with law. Therefore, nothing survives in this Writ Petition.
2/4
W.P.(MD)No.7590 of 2024
The respondents shall call for a fresh tender in accordance with law, in which both the petitioner and the 4th respondent can also participate. The respondents are directed to return the EMD deposits to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent, which were deposited by them at the time of applying tender. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
01.10.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No vsm To
1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, Represented by the District Collector, Madurai District.
3/4
W.P.(MD)No.7590 of 2024
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
W.P.(MD)No.7590 of 2024
01.10.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's tender for public works was erroneously rejected and whether the work should be allotted to the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Palpandi
State of Tamilnadu
District Rural Development Agency
Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat)
P.Karthika
N.SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
