← Library
Madras High CourtWP/32196/2016disposed of

R.Ravi v. The District Collector

2016-09-15Honourable Mr Justice B. Rajendran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.09.2016

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.No.32196 of 2016 R.Ravi ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The District Collector, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.

2. The District Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Nagapattinam.

3. Pargunam ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.07.2016 within a reasonable time that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner :

Mr.B.Ramprabu For R1 and R2 :

Mr.S.V.Duraisolaimalai, Additional Govt. Pleader

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 02.07.2016 within a stipulated time.

2. According to the petitioner, the office of the second respondent announced three projects under the scheme of PMGSY for the development of roads in the District. The petitioner's father, who is a first class contractor having licence issued by the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D, had applied for the said project and the third respondent had also applied for the said projects. But, the third respondent, who did not possess the requisite qualification as prescribed in the rules, was awarded the said project, based on the experience certificate and First Class Contract Licence, produced by him. According to the petitioner, the third respondent has given a false experience certificate stating that he was working as a Sub Contractor in M.R.Hi.Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Based on the same, the third respondent obtained First Class Contract Licence from Superintending Engineer, P.W.D.

Cuddalore on 24.12.2012.

Furthermore, as per the information given by the Public information Officer, Highways Department, Ramanathapuram, the third respondent has not worked as a Sub Contractor with M.R.Hi.Tech Engineer Pvt. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ltd., Ramanathapuram. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 02.07.2016 before the first respondent to cancel the project assigned to the 3rd respondent and take action against him. However, the same is pending before the respondents till date. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Govt. Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

4. Considering the limited prayer sought for in the writ petition, without expressing any opinion on merits, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2016, after giving notice to the 3rd respondent and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the third respondent and pass orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 5.

With the above direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar ogy To

1. The District Collector, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.

2. The District Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Nagapattinam.

+1 CC to Mr.B.Ram Prabu, Advocate SR.No.52140 CO-KSJ ths : 22.10.2016 W.P.No.32196 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/