1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:16-12-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.14113 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)NOs.1,2 and 3 of 2011 M/s.Ramesh Traders, No.5/2, Malaiveethi, Velayuthampalayam, Karur District, Rep. by its Prop.S.Ramesh. :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd., Kagithapuram, Karur District. 2.The Chief General Manager (M&L), Tamilnadu Newsprint and papers Ltd., Kagithapuram, Karur District. 3.The Assistant General Manager (Disposal) Tamilnadu Newsprint and papers Ltd., Kagithapuram, Karur District. 4.The Manager (Stores), Tamilnadu Newsprint and papers Ltd., Kagithapuram, Karur District. :Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pursuant to the impugned Tender Notification of the 4th respondent dated 28.11.2011 bearing TENDER NO.MM/SS/TENDER/2011070 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to issue sale order to the petitioner as per the tender allotment pursuant to the tender notification dated 25.10.2010 for the remaining period starting from 1.1.2012 to 25.2.2012 (56 days). For Petitioner :Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Mr.S.Suresh For respondents:Mr.K.Srinivasan Sr.Counsel For Mr.M.P.Senthil ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging a tender notification. 2.Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3.The petitioner was granted a contract, by a sale order dated 27.12.2010, for the removal of sludge for the period upto 30.09.2011. The sale order was liable to be extended upto 31.12.2011, subject to the renewal of the consent order from the Pollution Control Board. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.Since the consent order could not be produced 10 days before the expiry of the period, the respondents did not grant extension forcing the petitioner to come up with W.P.(MD) No.11049 of 2011. 5.The writ petition was allowed by order dated 18.10.2011 and the same was confirmed on appeal in W.A.(MD)No.1279 of 2011 by an order dated 10.11.2011. Consequently, the petitioner today has extension of the contract upto 31.12.2011. 6.But contending that he lost a period of 56 days on account of the delay on the part of the respondents, in renewing the contract, the petitioner made a representation. However the respondents floated a tender by a notification dated 28.11.2011. Therefore, challenging the tender notification, the petitioner is before this Court. 7.The respondents have filed a counter pointing out in para 11 that the tender notification dated 28.11.2011 has been cancelled. Therefore, the writ petition has actually become infructuous. 8.In view of the above, the writ petition is closed as infructuous. The respondents may consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.12.2011 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd.,Kagithapuram,Karur District 2.The Chief General Manager (M&L), Tamilnadu Newsprint and papers Ltd.,Kagithapuram,Karur District 3.The Assistant General Manager (Disposal) Tamilnadu Newsprint and papers Ltd.,Kagithapuram,Karur District 4.The Manager (Stores), Tamilnadu Newsprint and papers Ltd.,Kagithapuram,Karur District MPK W.P.(MD)No.14113 of 2011 RP/28.12.2011/2P/5C. 16-12-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/