IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 12.4.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.9286 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 V.Duraisamy ... Petitioner Vs The Commissioner, Thiruvottiyur Municipality, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai-600 019. ... Respondent Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned tender notice No.31/2010 dated 1.2.2011 issued by the respondent and to quash the same insofar as the road mentioned as item No.12 in the impugned tender notice is concerned. For petitioner : Mr.K.B.Vivekanandhan For respondent : Mr.S.Shivashanmugam ----- O R D E R
Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned Tender Notification No.31/2010 dated 1.2.2011 issued by the respondent and to quash the same insofar as the road mentioned as item No.12 in the impugned tender notice is concerned.
2. Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The writ petition is filed challenging the Tender Notification No.31/2010 dated 1.2.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that on 3.12.2010 Tender Notification No.26/2010 was issued. In respect of Serial No.14, petitioner was given the work order being the highest tenderer. That work order was issued under letter dated 3.1.2011 in Na.Ka.No.7307/2010,1/ The amount specified in the work order is 1.36 lakhs. Petitioner states that he has started and completed the work. In the meanwhile, the respondent municipality issued another Tender Notification No.31/2010 dated 1.2.2011 and in that Serial No.12 relates to the very same street for a higher amount. Therefore, petitioner pleads that he will not be paid any amount for the work done as per the earlier work order issued to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition challenging the subsequent Tender Notification.
4. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the respondent has not cancelled the work order already issued to him. If the said statement is correct and the work order is not cancelled, the authorities are bound by the Tender Notification and the work order issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner can claim payment as per the work done pursuant to the work order if he satisfies the requirement of the Tender Notification and if the work order is not cancelled as per law.
5. There is no justification in challenging the subsequent Tender Notification as it is a prerogative of the respondent to issue appropriate Tender Notification based on the need of the municipality from time to time.
6. Petitioner’s claim will be considered by the authority based on the Tender Notification and the work order issued to him already and the petitioner can approach the authority if there is any impediment in the work order issued to him. The writ petition filed to quash the subsequent Tender Notification does not merit consideration by this Court without proper material or pleading. A mere Tender Notification will not give the petitioner a cause of action to come to this Court for quashing it.
7. The relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Petitioner can address his grievance, if any, to the authorities and they shall consider it as per law. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Chennai 600 019