1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A. (MD) No.555 of 2011 & M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 The Executive Officer, Ponnamaravathy Special Grade Town Panchayat, Pudukkottai District. : Appellant Vs. 1. P.N.S.Nachan 2. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District. 3. Vijaya Raghunathan, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukkottai District. : Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 25.08.2010 passed in W.P. (MD) No.1527 of 2010. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the tender notification dated 4.2.2010 in Na.Ka.No.192/2009 of the Second Respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the Second Respondent herein to award the contract pursuant work to the petitioner dated 16.12.2009 to the earlier tender notification. For appellant : Mr. D. Sasikumar For R2 : Mr. R. Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr. R.P. Ramachandiran For R1 : No Appearance JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ appeal is filed as against the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (MD) No.1527 of 2010 which was filed challenging the tender notification dated 04.02.2010. 2. The case of the writ petitioiner is that when tender notification was issued for the improvement of roads, he also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 participated in the same and for the successful bidder, the contract was awarded; however, subsequently, the same was cancelled on the ground that the successful bidder as well as his son participated in the tender selection process and also on the ground that the meeting of the council took place simultaneously with the tender process which was a hindrance for the tender selection process; based on these two grounds, the earlier tender was cancelled; challenging the same, the writ petition is filed. 3. The above said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge by order dated 25.08.2010 and as against the said order, this writ appeal is filed. 4. Even in the writ appeal also, the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the successful bidder as well as his son participated in the tender selection process, they are not eligible for it. But, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly admits that no such a bar has been imposed either in the tender notification or in the concerned Act or Rules. Under such circumstances, this stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable. 5. The other stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is that simultaneously, the meeting of the council should not have taken place. We are not able to understand as to in what way that is relevant to the issue on hand and there is no finding also to the effect that it had an impact in the tender selection process. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge is in conformity with the rules and no ground is also made out by the appellant to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District. 2. The Executive Officer, Ponnamaravathy, Special Grade Town Panchayat, Pudukkottai District. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.19653) +1 CC to Mr.D.Sasikumar, Advocate (SR.No.19260) W.A. (MD) No.555 of 2011 21.06.2011 cad NSV/8.7.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/