1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).Nos.9779 & 9780 of 2011 1.K.Selvendran : Petitioner in WP.9779/11 2.K.Karmegam : Petitioner in WP.9780/11 Vs. The District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Perum Thitta Valagam Ramanathapuram. : Respondents in both WPs. PRAYER IN BOTH WPs: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue the application for the tender called by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.71/2011/A2, dated 12.08.2011 to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.A.John Stephen For Respondents : Mr.M.Muniasamy Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER The petitioner has sought for a Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue the application for the tender called by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.71/2011/A2, dated 12.08.2011 to the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to a notification dated 12.08.2011, he approached the respondent for issuance of tender schedule and application form along with the prescribed demand draft. The request of the petitioner has not been considered so far and, hence, he has sent a representation to the respondent, dated 25.08.2011, to issue tender form. Contending inter alia that there is a failure on the part of the District Manager, TASMAC, in discharging duties, as per the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, and in these circumstances, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition for the reliefs stated supra. 3. Considering the limited relief, Mr.M.Muniasamy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TASMAC was put on notice. He denied the allegations levelled against the District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Ramanathapuram District, the respondent herein. However, he submitted that the tender schedule and application form https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 would be issued, on receipt of necessary application along with the prescribed fee. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel is placed on record. 4. In view of the above, a direction is issued to the District Manager, TASMAC, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Ramanathapuram District, the respondent herein, to issue the tender schedule and application form to the petitioner, on receipt of necessary application form and the required fee, by way of Demand Draft. The petitioner is directed to submit necessary application form with fee, as stated supra Mr.M.Muniasamy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TASMAC also submitted that he will communicate this order to the respondents forthwith, so as to enable the respondents to comply with the directions issued by this Court. It was also submitted that despite production of copies of the orders made in the writ petitions, tender schedule forms were refused on the ground that the District Manager, TASMAC, has not received any copy from the Registry. It is made clear that since orders are passed in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for TASMAC, it is his responsibility to communicate the order for compliance. It is not open to the District Manager, TASMAC, to refuse issuance of tender schedule an application form on the ground that he has not received any copy from the Registry or from his counsel. 5. The Writ Petition stands ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Perum Thitta Valagam Ramanathapuram. +2cc to Mr.A.John Stephen, Advocate SR.Nos.29353 & 29354 MPK akm/26.08.11 /2p-4c/ ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).Nos.9779 & 9780 of 2011 26.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/