M.Karuppasamy v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Writ Petition(MD)No.15356 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.11603 & 11604 of 2025 M.Karuppasamy ..Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Manamadurai Revenue Division, Sivagangai District.
3.The Tahsildar, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District.
4.Valagurunathan 5.P.Duraimurugan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order vide Na.Ka. B2/7514/2025 dated 24.04.2025 and consequent impugned order vide Na.Ka.A2/4464/2024 dated 24.04.2025 passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and further 1/5
direct the 2nd respondent to issue cutting order in the name of the petitioner as he is the successful bidder in the public auction held on 08.02.2025 conducted by the 3rd respondent within a specific time limit prescribed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj (R1 to R3)
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the respondents 1 and 2 whereby they have cancelled the tender that was awarded to the petitioner for cutting Keemaikaruvela trees.
2. The tender notice was issued by the third respondent/Tahsildar on 05.02.2025, fixing the date of opening the tender as 08.02.2025.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the tender notification was affixed in the office of the Village Administrative Officer, the office of the Panchayat, and the office of the Tahildar, namely, the third respondent, and 10 persons participated, and the petitioner was the highest bidder, who offered a sum of Rs.1,46,000/-. Pursuant to which, the tender was also awarded to the petitioner. 2/5
4. However, it is further stated that the private respondents herein have tried to cancel the tender awarded to the petitioner, citing that no notice was given and they were willing to offer Rs.1,60,000/-.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fifth respondent offered Rs.1,60,000/- by enclosing a cheque after the tender was closed. Therefore, it is clearly contrary to the provision of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and Rules made therein.
6. A specific query as to whether the tender notice was published in the tender bulletin as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. The answer coming from the respondents is no notice was issued in the tender bulletin. That apart, it is admitted that the mandatory period of 15 days for responding to the tender notification has also not been issued.
7. Considering the above-said fact, I find no merit in the present writ petition. Under these circumstances, the official respondents are directed to issue a re-tender auction for cutting the Seemaikaruvela trees. It is open to the petitioner to participate in the tender. Since 3/5
the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- together with applicable tax, the same shall be retained as the petitioner's offer. In case the higher offer is made in some other bid, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 30 days, after due compliance with the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. 8.This writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 09.06.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Manamadurai Revenue Division, Sivagangai District.
3.The Tahsildar, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District.
4/5
C.SARAVANAN, J.
skn Writ Petition(MD)No.15356 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.11603 & 11604 of 2025 09.06.2025 5/5