IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 22-12-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.29101 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 E.Ravi .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Zonal Officer Zonal Office-VII, Corporation of Chennai, Lake Area, 4th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 2.The Executive Engineer, Zonal Office -VII, Corporation of Chennai, Lake Area, 4th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600 034. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the record pertaining to issuing of tender vide M.A.7.Na.No.E2/10203/2010 dated 09.12.2010 quash the same pertaining to Serial No.4, Zone-VII, Division-19, Ward No.102 situate in Avdhana Pappiyar Street, (Choolai Main Road) of said tender bulletin and to direct the respondents to revive the tender in favour of the petitioner for ensuing one year period as per letter dated 26.04.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manohar For Respondents : Mr.A.Mohamed Ghouse O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondents cannot call for a fresh tender, when the representation submitted by the petitioner, relating to earlier tender, had not been disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law. He had also submitted that the cancellation of the tender awarded in his favour, by the order of the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, dated 29.04.2010, is erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of law. However, it is noted that the said order, cancelling the tender granted in favour of the petitioner, had not been challenged, till date. The tender notification, dated 09.12.2010, is only consequential in nature, since, the tender granted in favour of the petitioner, earlier, had been cancelled by the first respondent, by his order, dated 29.04.2010. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted, on instructions, that it would be open to the petitioner to participate in the tender process, pursuant to the tender notification, dated 09.12.2010, if he is so advised. However, the petitioner does not have any right to challenge the tender notification, dated 09.12.2010, without challenging the order passed by the first respondent, on 29.04.2010. 4.In view of the averments made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondents, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner, has not shown sufficient cause or reason, to grant the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present petition. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the tender notification, dated 09.12.2010, without challenging the earlier order of the first respondent, dated 29.04.2010, cancelling the tender granted in favour of the petitioner. As such, this petition is devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, it would be open to the petitioner, to participate in the tender process, pursuant to the tender notification, dated 09.12.2010, if he is eligible, as per law. arr Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Zonal Officer Zonal Office-VII, Corporation of Chennai, Lake Area, 4th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 2.The Executive Engineer, Zonal Office -VII, Corporation of Chennai, Lake Area, 4th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600 034 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ + 1 cc to Mr. V. Manohar, Advocate SR No.91162 + 1 cc to Mr. A. Mohammed Gouse, Advocate SR No.91236 BS(CO) SR/23.12.2010 Writ Petition No.29101 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/