A.Sathiq Basha v. The Chairman

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.08.2020 CORAM :

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.16646 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

1. Mr. A. Sathiq Basha

2. Mr. S. Syed Moosa

3. Mr. P. Abdul Latheef

4. Mr. A. Zamil

5. Mr. J. Shafiulla

6. Mr J. Rafi

7. Mr. A. Muhammed Hussain

8. Mr. E. Arumugam

...Petitioners

v.

1. The Chairman,

2. The Commissioner,

3. Mr. S. Sahul Hameed

4. B. Malayan

5. Manickam

...Respondents

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to initiate action for cancellation of the tender contract issued in favour of the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to collect the rent and the slaughter charges directly from the petitioners. For Petitioners : Mr. S.S.Swaminathan For Respondents : Ms. A. Madhumathi, Spl. Govt. Pleader - for R1 Mr. P. Chinnadurai, Govt. Advocate - for R2 No Appearance - for R3 to R5

O R D E R

The petitioners have filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate action for cancellation of the tender contract issued in favour of the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to collect the rent and the slaughter charges directly from the petitioners.

2. When the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, Mr. P.Chinnadurai learned Government Advocate, appearing for the 2nd respondent-Municipality submitted that the 2nd respondent had already cancelled the tender issued in favour of the 3rd respondent on 31.10.2016 and a new tender was called for and the tender was granted in favour of some other person for the year 2017-2020, which period had also expired. Further, the learned Government Advocate submitted that since the 2nd respondent had already cancelled the tender issued in favour of the 3rd respondent nothing survives for adjudication in the present Writ Petition.

3. Recording the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the 2nd respondent-Municipality, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, the petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedy in accordance with law, if so advised. No costs. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Rj To

1. The Chairman,

2. The Commissioner, +1cc to M/s.S.S.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.26027 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.26241 W.P.No.16646 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 RJI(CO) KKV/20/08/2020