1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.2446 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 E.Subbiah .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 108. 2.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 4.The President, Melaseval Town Panchayat, Melaseval, Tirunelveli District. 5.The Executive Officer, Melaseval Town Panchayat, Melaseval, Tirunelveli District. 6.The Junior Engineer, Melaseval, Town Panchayat, Melaseval, Tirunelveli District. 7.N.Chelladurai .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the tender notification of the 5th respondent in Na.Ka.No.32/2010, dated 24.08.2010 and quash the same and further forbearing the respondents 4 and 5 from acting against the resolution No.263 dated 25.09.2009 and resolution No.49 dated 05.10.2010. For Petitioner :Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi For Respondents :Mr.Ts.Md.Mohideen ,AGP for R2 & R3 Mr.P.Thilakkumar for R5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ORDER The petitioner, at the time of filing of the writ petition, was a ward councilor in Ward No.12 in the Melaseval Town Panchayat. It is not clear whether he has been re-elected again in the said ward. Curiously, in the writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge a short term tender notice issued by the fifth respondent, the Executive Officer, Town Panchayat dated 24.08.2010. 2. By the impugned notice, the tenders were called for to work for the value of Rs.3,00,000/- for the purpose of providing drinking water supply, electricity supply, fixing aluminium doors and windows and also for other upgraded works. The case of the petitioner was that the fourth respondent, the earlier President of the Town Panchayat, in collusion with the fifth respondent are acting against the resolution No.263 dated 25.09.2009 and resolution No.49 dated 05.10.2010. Therefore, the impugned tender notice should be halted and the earlier resolutions should be given effect to. 3. Notice of motion was ordered on 02.03.2011. Pending the notice, this Court held that there was a prima facie case for grant of injunction and therefore, the respondents 4 to 6 were restrained from awarding the work on the basis of the tender notification impugned in the writ petition. 4. On notice from this Court, the fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 09.11.2011. 5. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to state his locus standi in challenging the present tender notification. 6. As admittedly, the petitioner is neither a tenderer nor a prospective tenderer nor was a beneficiary under the two old resolutions passed by the Panchayat. In the first resolution referred to by the petitioner, it was stated that a new building was constructed by the compensation fund allotted towards the loss of entertainment tax for the year 2008-2009 and they were intending to purchase a U shaped tables and chairs and fans and that was approved by the Council and counter signed by the fourth respondent. 7. In the second resolution of the Panchayat referred to by the petitioner dated 05.10.2010 in Resolution No.49, the Panchayat decided to give a contract in favour of the seventh respondent namely N.Chelladurai who was given the quotation less than the quotation given by the another bidder. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that having awarded the contract in favour of the seventh respondent and not granting the work order in favour of the seventh respondent, the fifth respondent is proceeding with the fresh tender. Even assuming that the fifth respondent based upon some illegal reason called for fresh tenders, it is not clear as to how the petitioner, who was a former councilor, can challenge the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. Even according to the petitioner, the seventh respondent is a successful bidder and he has not challenged calling for fresh fresh tender. The petitioner cannot state that the Panchayat must be strict to earlier resolutions. Ultimately it is for the Panchayat to decide its own course. In terms of Section 25 Schedule III of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 the proceedings of the Council are regulated. Under Rule 8 there is an embargo to cancel the resolution within 3 months and not thereafter. 10. Since the petitioner is no longer a councilor as of now and the aggrieved person namely the seventh respondent has not chosen to challenge the notice calling for fresh tender, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the basis of the assertion made by the petitioner. In fact, the locus standi of the petitioner in preferring such case itself is doubtful. Hence, the writ petition will stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 108. 2.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 4.The President, Melaseval Town Panchayat, Melaseval, Tirunelveli District. 5.The Executive Officer, Melaseval Town Panchayat, Melaseval, Tirunelveli District. 6.The Junior Engineer, Melaseval, Town Panchayat,Melaseval,Tirunelveli District. +One cC to Mr.P.THilakkumar, Advocate, SR.No.38996 +One cc to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.38772 jikr rl/9c – 23.11.2011 Order made in W.P.(MD)No.2446 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 09.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/