The writ petition challenging a tender corrigendum was dismissed as the tender process was complete and a successful tenderer had been confirmed. The court held that nothing survived for adjudication.
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.4213 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.(MD)No.4213 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.3028 & 3029 of 2025
Kandasamy
... Petitioner
-vs-
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Tender Corrigendum Notification dated 06.02.2025 bearing Tender Reference No. 4548/2024/E1 bearing Tender ID 2025_MAWS_520954_1 for TURIP 2024-25 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to re-conduct the tender after following the procedure laid down under the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000.
1/4
W.P.(MD).No.4213 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar (R1) Special Government Pleader Mr.E.P.Venkateshwar (R2)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the Impugned Tender Corrigendum Notification dated 06.02.2025 bearing Tender Reference No. 4548/2024/E1 bearing Tender ID 2025_MAWS_520954_1 for TURIP 2024-25 on the file of the 2 nd respondent, with a consequential direction to the 1st and 2 nd respondents to re-conduct the tender, after following the procedure laid down under the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the petitioner has participated in the tender process, wherein, the petitioner was qualified for the
2/4
W.P.(MD).No.4213 of 2025
technical bid and however, he was disqualified for the price bid and the successful tenderer has already been confirmed and now, the process of tender is now over.
4. Since the process of the tender has been over, nothing survives for further adjudication in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No sm
TO:-
3/4
W.P.(MD).No.4213 of 2025
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
sm
Order made in W.P.(MD)No.4213 of 2025
Dated: 13.03.2025
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the tender corrigendum and direct re-conduct of tender when the tender process has already concluded.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Kandasamy
The Director of Municipal Administration
The Commissioner, Karaikudi City Municipal Corporation
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
