K.Maruthu Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

K.Maruthu Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed. Second respondent (Block Development Officer, Ilayankudi Panchayat Union) directed to issue a fresh Tender Notification pursuant to the administrative sanction order dated 22.04.2025, as early as possible and preferably within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, following the procedure under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Rules of 2000. EMD paid by the third respondent to be refunded if he does not participate in the future tender, otherwise retained and adjusted towards EMD payable in the fresh tender. No costs; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire tender process pursuant to the administrative sanction order dated 22.04.2025 issued by the first respondent in respect of Ilayankudi Panchayat Union (serial Nos.8 to 17 qua the petitioner) is illegal for non-compliance with the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Rules of 2000, given that no bulletin was published as contemplated thereunder. +1 more

Court's answer

It is an admitted position that no bulletin was published as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Rules made thereunder; this non-compliance is the basis for allowing the petition.

Ratio / Principle

Since there is no compliance with the provisions of the Act, the writ petition is allowed with the consequential direction to the second respondent to issue a fresh Tender Notification pursuant to the administrative sanction order dated 22.04.2025, following the ratio of the earlier decision in W.P.(MD) No.21657 of 2025 (S.Kalyanasundaram) requiring compliance with Section 9 of the Act and Rules 5 to 7 of the Rules.

Key takeaways

The earnest money deposit paid by the third respondent is to be refunded to him if he does not wish to participate in the future tender; if he decides to participate in the ensuing tender, the amount may be retained and adjusted towards the EMD payable in the fresh Tender Notification to be issued by the second respondent.ratio¶101
The second respondent is to issue the fresh Tender Notification as early as possible, preferably within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs were imposed and the connected miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P.(MD) Nos.11407 and 16789 of 2025) stand closed.ratio¶102

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Declaration under Article 226 - tender process pursuant to administrative sanction order dated 22.04.2025 issued by the District Collector, Sivagangai in respect of Ilayankudi Panchayat Union (serial Nos.8 to 17 qua petitioner) - grievance that no bulletin was published as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, which position was admitted - Court, placing reliance on and following its earlier detailed order in S.Kalyanasundaram Vs. The District Collector and others, W.P.(MD) No.21657 of 2025, dated 06.08.2025 (which sets out the mandate of Section 9 of the Act and Rules 5 to 8 and 11 of the Rules, including bulletin publication and newspaper publication subject to the G.O.Ms.No.207, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 26.06.2018 exemption below Rs.10,00,000/-), held that absent compliance with the provisions of the Act the writ petition had to be allowed - writ petition allowed with consequential direction to the second respondent (Block Development Officer) to issue a fresh Tender Notification pursuant to the same administrative sanction order dated 22.04.2025, preferably within four weeks - EMD of the third respondent (to whom a work order had issued on 09.05.2025, work unexecuted due to pendency) to be refunded if he opts out of the future tender, or retained and adjusted towards EDM payable in the fresh tender if he participates - no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.