1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.9421 of 2011 A.Pandidurai ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Limited Trichy 2. The District Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Limited Pudukkottai District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue tender schedule to the petitioner in pursuance to the tender notification in Vay.Annai.No. 47 Say.Ma.Tho.Aa/2011 dated 08.08.2011 published in Dhinathanthi Daily, dated 09.08.2011 so as to enable the petitioner to participate in the tender process. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr. M.Muniasamy O R D E R The petitioner has sought for a Mandamus directing the District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Limited, Pudukkottai District, the second respondent herein, to issue a tender schedule to the petitioner, in pursuant to the tender notification, dated 08.08.2011 published in Dhinathanthi Daily, dated 09.08.2011, so as to enable the petitioner to participate in the tender process. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that though he has taken a demand draft, bearing No. 767512616, dated 09.08.2011, drawn in favour of the District Manager, TASMAC (RV), Pudukkottai, for value of Rs.525/- and submitted an application, for the reasons best known, the District Manager, TASMAC Limited has refused to receive the tender schedule. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 16 of TamilNadu Transparency in Tenders Rules 2000, the respondents should make the tender document available from the date of publication of tender to all persons, who are willing to participate in the tender, subject to payment of the cost of the document. Thus there is a failure to discharge the duty of the abovesaid rule. Therefore, mandamus is sought for directing the second respondent to issue the tender schedule to the petitioner. 3. Considering the limited relief, Mr.M.Muniasamy, learned counsel for TASMAC, was put on notice. He has sought for time to ascertain as to whether the petitioner has submitted any application for issuance of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 tender. He also submitted that if the petitioner had already remitted a sum of Rs.525/- by way of demand draft, he would be furnished with tender schedule. His submission is placed on record. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record. 5. As per the tender notification dated 08.08.2011, published in Dhinathanthi daily newspaper, the last date for issuance of tender schedule is 27.08.2011. Though the petitioner has contended that he has made a request to the District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Pudukkottai District/the 2nd respondent herein for issuance of tender schedule, there is no acknowledgement, for receipt of the application. However, perusal of the copy of the Demand Draft, dated 09.08.2011 enclosed in the typed set of papers at page No.2, shows that a demand draft for value of Rs.525/- has been taken in favour of the District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Pudukkottai District. 6. If the District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Pudukkottai District, has refused to acknowledge the receipt of the application for issuance of tender, along with the demand draft, dated 09.08.2011, nothing prevented the writ petitioner from sending the same to the said authority, by registered post or through any other manner known to law. There is no proof for tendering the same, except the averments. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to make a request in writing to the second respondent along with the demand draft drawn in his favour or sent it by registered post with acknowledgement due, within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such request is made, the District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Pudukkottai District shall issue necessary tender schedule to the petitioner forthwith, so as to enable him to participate in the tender. It is made clear, that the application submitted with Demand Draft should be accepted, if made in time. 8. This Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( AE ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR vsg To 1.The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Limited, Trichy 2.The District Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Limited, Pudukkottai Dist 1CC TO MR. D. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE, SR: 28479: DM::2011:AUGUST:23:: W.P.(MD).No.9421 of 2011 22.08.2011 2P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/