Allowed

Balasubramanian M v. The District Collector

Madras HC13 Oct 2025WP(MD)/14775/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged a temple tender notification issued without proper newspaper publication. The court found the auction contrary to the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, set aside the auction proceedings, and directed a fresh notice with publication in vernacular and English newspapers.

What did the court decide?

Impugned auction proceedings set aside; fresh auction notification directed with proper newspaper publication; fourth respondent's deposit to be refunded.

Balasubramanian M Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.14775 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.14775 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.11045 of 2025

M.Balasubramanian

..Petitioner

The District Collector Thoothukudi District, District Collectorate, Thoothukudi

¶11

The Joint Commissioner

¶12

Departement of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endouwments,Tirunelveli

¶13

The Executive officer

¶14

Arulmigu Mahaganapathi Temple, Ammanpuram, Tiruchendur taluk, Thoothukudi District

¶15

Office at

¶16

Campus of Arulmigu Maharanedu Kulaikanathar Tirukovil, Thentiruperai, Eral Taluk-Pin-628 623

¶17

Sundarapandian

¶18

..Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned tender notification dated 06-05-2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent and consequently to direct the 3rd

¶20

1/6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P(MD)No.14775 of 2025

¶23

Respondent to reissue a fresh tender notification strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 ensuring due publicity and transparency as mandated under law.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbha Raj Spl. Govt. Pleader (for R1 and R2)

¶26

Mr.H.Arumugam (for R3) Mr.S.Pandiya Raj (for R4)

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned tender notification dated 06.05.2025 issued by the third respondent and consequently seeking a direction to the third respondent to issue a fresh tender notification strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, ensuring due publicity and transparency as mandated under law.

¶29

It is seen that the auction has been conducted without following the prescribed rules. In the earlier fasali, the third respondent, by adhering to the procedure, had issued the paper publication twice. However, for reasons best known, the contract was not awarded to the highest successful bidder.

¶30

Thereafter, with respect to the auction which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, the communication addressed by the Executive

¶31

2/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.14775 of 2025

¶34

Officer to the learned counsel for the third respondent reveals that there has been no proper paper publication and that the notice was merely affixed on the Notice Board. The same is contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Rules framed thereunder. The relevant portion of the communication reads as follows:

¶35

“vdNt jw;NghJ Kiwahf 20.05.2025 md;W eilngw;w Vyj;jpw;fhd Vy mwptpg;G tpsk;guk; nra;ag;gl;L> fpuhk epu;thf mYtyfk;> mUfpy; cs;s jpUf;Nfhapy;fspd; nray; mYtyu; mYtyf tpsk;gu gyif kw;Wk; nghJ kf;fs; ifnahg;gk; ngwg;gl;L jpUf;NfhtpYf;F nrd;w grypfspy; Vw;gl;l tUtha; ,og;ig fUj;jpy; nfhz;L nra;jpj;jhs; tpsk;guk; kl;Lk; nra;ahky; nghJ Vyk; 20.05.2025y; elj;jg;gl;lJ. mjpy; 4 egu;fs; nlghrpl; nrYj;jp Vyj;jpy; fye;J nfhz;ldu;. ,jpy; kDjhuu; M.ghyRg;gpukzpad; fye;J nfhs;stpy;iy. vdNt nrd;w grypfspy; Vw;gl;l tUtha; ,og;ig fUj;jpy; nfhz;Lk; nrd;w grypapy; Nfl;fg;gl;l njhifia fhl;bYk; mjpf njhiff;F jpU G.Re;jughz;bad; vd;gtu; Vyk; Nfl;ljhYk; gryp 1434y; &.3>21>000/-f;Fk; gryp 1434y; 15% cau;T nra;J &. 3>69>150- gryp 1435f;Fk; Vyk; [hup nra;ag;gl;L gzk; cld; ngwg;gl;L urPJk; toq;fg;gl;lJ. ,J jpUf;Nfhtpy; eyd; fUjp nra;ag;gl;ljhFk;. ,jpy; ve;jtpj xspT kiwTk; ,y;iy. vdNt Nkw;gb jilahizia ePf;f gzpTld; Ntd;LfpNwd;.”

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)No.14775 of 2025

¶39

In view of the above, the auction proceedings challenged herein are set aside. The third respondent is directed to issue a fresh auction notice. The said notice shall be published in vernacular newspapers as well as in a widely circulated English daily having coverage throughout the area, in addition to being affixed on the Notice Board. Thereafter, the auction shall be finalized in accordance with law. The deposit made by the fourth respondent shall be refunded to him. It is open to the fourth respondent to participate in the subsequent auction.

¶40

This writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶41

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

13.10.2025

¶43

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn

¶44

¶45

The District Collector Thoothukudi District, District Collectorate, Thoothukudi

¶46

The Joint Commissioner Departement of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endouwments,Tirunelveli.

¶47

4/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P(MD)No.14775 of 2025

¶50

The Executive officer Arulmigu Mahaganapathi Temple, Ammanpuram, Tiruchendur taluk, Thoothukudi District

¶51

Office at

¶52

Campus of Arulmigu Maharanedu Kulaikanathar Tirukovil, Thentiruperai, Eral Taluk-Pin-628 623

¶53

5/6

¶54

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

¶55

W.P(MD)No.14775 of 2025

¶56

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶57

skn

¶58

Writ Petition(MD)No.14775 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.11045 of 2025

¶59

13.10.2025

¶60

6/6

¶61

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

Balasubramanian M v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasubramanian M 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Chelladurai, Vs the District Collector

A.Senthilvel and another Vs Dr.R.Selvaraj, Ias., and 3 others

Garuda Enterprises, Vs The Superintending Engineer(H)

G.Rajan, Vs the Secretary to Government

G. Srinivasan Vs The District Collector cum District Magistrate

V.Vijay Vs The Chief Engineer