Palanivel A v. The District Manager
W.P.(MD).No.23038 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.(MD).No.23038 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD).No.19516 of 2021 A.Palanivel ... Petitioner Vs.
The District Manager, TASMAC, SIDCO Industrial Estate, No.5/B1, Muthudaiyanpatti Post, Pudukkottai.
... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue TASMAC bar tender applications to the petitioner with regard to Shop Nos.6537 and 6658 in Pudukkottai District as per the notification by respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/1751/2021 dated on 14.12.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.H.Arumugam, Standing Counsel.
ORDER
Heard Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Standing Counsel who takes notice on behalf of the respondent.
2. The respondent had issued applications seeking tenders for Shop Nos.6537 and 6658 in Pudukkottai District. notification in this regard had been issued on 14.12.2021 in Na.Ka.No.A3/1751/2021. The writ petitioner claims that he had approached the respondent seeking copy of the application form but the same was refused by the respondent. Therefore, he had immediately come to this Court.
3. I have no words to express regarding the same. Let the petitioner download the application form from the website. He may also take a copy of the application from the notice already issued. He may also take a printout after taking a copy from the notice available in the newspapers or in the public notice or he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2
W.P.(MD).No.23038 of 2021 may also approach the respondent seeking a copy of the application. No convincing averments have been made by the petitioner that he has been specifically singled out and denied him a copy of the application form.
4. The notification is issued to the public in general and not to any specific individual. The petitioner should make necessary efforts to get a copy of the application. The Writ Court cannot be a source to guide him as to how he should get a copy of the application. The entire issue leaves a big question mark to be answered only by the petitioner.
5. A direction is given to the respondent to ensure that not only the petitioner but everybody who intends to participate in the auction, is made available with a copy of the application either through the respondent or by downloading it from the website. A direction in this regard need not be issued. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (WRITS) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Lm Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
TO The District Manager, TASMAC, SIDCO Industrial Estate, No.5/B1, Muthudaiyanpatti Post, Pudukkottai.
+1 CC to M/s.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate (SR-40509[F] dated 27/12/2021) W.P.(MD).No.23038 of 2021 23.12.2021 SK(CO)/SB(19.01.2022) 2P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2