Harimurugesan H v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Writ Petition(MD)No.17007 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.12583 and 12585 of 2026 H.Harimurugesan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Commissioner, Dindigul Corporation, Dindigul.

..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 of the impugned tender notification dated 29.05.2026 in Na.Ka.No.1004/2026/A7 issued by the 2nd respondent for collecting fee in Gandhi Daily market belonging to Dindigul Corporation, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue retender adhering to the Tamilnadu Tender Transparency Rules for collecting fee in Gandhi Daily market belonging to Dindigul Corporation.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.F.Deepak For Respondents : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff Govt. Advocate for R1 Mr.J.Lawrance Standing Counsel for R2

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the tender notice dated 29.05.2026 issued by the second respondent inviting bids for the collection of fees in the Gandhi Daily Market belonging to the Dindigul Corporation. 2.The petitioner intended to participate in the tender process. However, the petitioner has challenged the impugned tender notification mainly on the ground that it contains a condition requiring the successful bidder to furnish an additional security deposit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said condition is contrary to the applicable rules and is therefore liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submitted that, although the tender notification contains a clause requiring payment of an additional 2/4

security deposit, the Corporation will not insist upon such payment. It was further submitted that the tender process will be completed without requiring any bidder to furnish an additional security deposit.

4. The learned Standing Counsel explained that the stipulation regarding the additional security deposit was inadvertently included in the tender notification and would not be enforced. It was also submitted that if the petitioner submits a bid, the same will be considered without insisting upon payment of any additional security deposit.

5. Recording the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the respondent Corporation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

18.06.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3/4

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

skn Writ Petition(MD)No.17007 of 2026 18.06.2026 4/4