Saravana Associates v. The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer
W.P.(MD) No.2882 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.2882 of 2020 Saravana Associates, Builders, Promoters and Contractors represented by its Partner, J.Uppili Srinivasan, S/o.G.K.Jeganathan, No.5, Sri Mookambigai Nagar, Manojipatti Road, M.C.Post, Thanjavur 613 004.
... Petitioner /vs./ 1.The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Arulmigu Abathsagayeswarar Temple, Alangudi, Tiruvarur District.
2.The Country Director, India Resident Mission, 4, San Martin Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110 021.
3.The Director of Tourism/Project Director, Project Manager Unit (ADB-IDIPT), Tamil Nadu Tourism Complex, No.2, Wallajah Road, Chennai -2.
(R2 and R3 have been impleaded vide order dated 26.04.2022.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to follow the rules and regulations of the above said tender Bid Invitation No.PIU/HR&CE/Roc.No.72245/2017/Y2 dated 09.09.2019. For Petitioner : M/s.A.Devaki For R1 : Mr.V.Chandrasekar For R2 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to follow the rules and regulations under the The Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 43 of 1998).
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2
W.P.(MD) No.2882 of 2020 2.It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent temple had floated a tender for laying paver blocks in the temple premises. It is submitted that the petitioner was disqualified at the price bid stage itself. However, the reason for rejecting the price bid of the petitioner was not properly communicated to the petitioner and therefore, the entire rights awarded thereafter are liable to be interfered with. It is further submitted that if the petitioner was informed about the reasons why tender bid of the petitioner was being rejected on account of the price criteria, the petitioner would have preferred an appeal under the aforesaid Rules. However, this was not done. 3.
Opposing the prayer, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent temple submits that this writ petition has become infructuous in the light of the fact that the project, which was to be funded by Asian Development Bank (ADB) for laying paver blocks in the temple premises, was later withdrawn and therefore, the respondent Bank has proceeded with laying of Granite materials in the temple premises. It is submitted that there is no merits in this writ petition.
4.Considering the fact that the tender was not proceeded further, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. The writ petition therefore stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS.II) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Country Director, India Resident Mission, 4, San Martin Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110 021.
2.The Director of Tourism/Project Director, Project Manager Unit (ADB-IDIPT), Tamil Nadu Tourism Complex, No.2, Wallajah Road, Chennai -2.
W.P.(MD)No.2882 of 2020 Date:26.04.2022 SA(01.06.2022) 2P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2