Madras High Court
P.Karuppiah vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 10 August, 2016
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.08.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
W.P.(MD)No.10858 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010
P.Karuppiah : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Madurai Region,
13A, Kanaga Apartments,
Lady Doak College Road,
Madurai-625 002.
2.The Special Officer,
A1462, Thirumangalam Agricultural Producers
Co-operative Marketing Society Limited,
Annai Illam,
166/155, Madurai Road,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai District. : Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
complete the tender process initiated by the second respondent under tender
notification dated 07.04.2010 and consequentially, forbearing the respondents
from awarding the transport contract to any third party through private
negotiations.
!For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan
For Respondent No.1 : No Appearance
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.G.Murugan
:ORDER
The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to complete the tender process initiated by the second respondent, vide notification dated 07 April, 2010 and forbear them from awarding the transport contract through private negotiation.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.
3. The first part of the prayer with regard to the further proceedings, pursuant to the notification dated 07 April, 2010, has practically become infructuous, in view of efflux of time.
4. The other question relates to the award of contract by private negotiation.
5. The second respondent, in the counter-affidavit, very clearly stated that the Society has been following only the method of public auction by inviting tenders after advertising in well known newspapers and they have not resorted to private negotiation for award of contract.
6. The petitioner has come up with a grievance that the second respondent is in the process of finalizing the tenders by private negotiation. The second respondent has now made it clear that only public auction would be resorted to and there is no question of private negotiation. In view of the said submission, nothing survives for adjudication with respect to the second prayer.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed..