High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:18.09.2007Coram:The Honourable Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALANW.P. No.26667 of 2007 & M.P. Nos.1,2 and 3 of 2007Sri Vaithiyanathan Constructionrepresented by its PartnerA. Kalaiyazhagan1/3 Middle StreetMemalur, Tirukoilur Taluk - 605 751Villupuram DistrictPetitionervs.The Block Development Officer(Village Panchayat)Tiruvennainallur Panchayat UnionVillupuram DistrictRespondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.For petitionerMr. N.G.R. Prasad for Mr. S. SaravanakumarFor 1st respondentMr. A. Edwin Prabakar, Addl. Govt. PleaderFor proposed impleadingMr. R.Shanmuga Sundaram, Senior Counselrespondentsfor Mr. K. Azhagu RamanORDERThis writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorarifiedmandamus calling for the records in respect of tender notification issuedby the respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka. A1/1326/07 dated 26.07.2007and quash the tender process pursuance to the above said tendernotification and consequently, direct the respondent to call for afreshand conduct a fresh tender and proceed in accordance with law and theprovisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998.2.The petitioner's case in brief, as culled out from the affidavit,runs as under:a.The petitioner was registered as a Class I contractor withthe respondent vide the proceedings of the District Collector,Villupuram dated 16.01.2006 and subsequently, its registration wasrenewed which is valid till 31.03.2008. While so, the respondentissued a Tender Notification in Ref.No. Na.Ka.A1/1326/07 dated26.07.2007 and the procedure for getting tender schedule is that therespondent has to give challan to deposit the initial amount for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ getting schedule of tender and after deposit of the challan amount,the respondent has to give the schedule to the registered contractors,the last date for which is 06.08.2007 and the last date for opening ofthe tender is at 4.00 p.m. on 07.08.2007.b.On 06.08.2007, when the petitioner entered the office of therespondent, the ruling party members, with the help of rowdy elements,prevented and assaulted the petitioner and other contractors andfurther, the respondent in collusion with the ruling party M.L.A.,even refused to entertain the petitioner inside the office premises.In respect of assault on the petitioner and other contractors, acriminal complaint was lodged before the Thiruvennainallur PoliceStation at Villupuram District and in this incident, the local M.L.A.also had sustained grievous injuries. Though the petitioner hadapplied with the necessary prescribed fee, the respondent refused evento supply the tender documents in violation of Section 9(4) of theTamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, (in short "the Act")according to which the respondent is obligated to supply the tenderdocuments to every intending tenderer who has applied for such adocument and because of the wilful contravention of Section 9(4) ofthe Act by the respondent, the present writ petition.3.The first respondent has filed counter contending that:a.the petitioner is one of the 25 registered contractors inTiruvennainallur Panchayat Union (in short "the Panchayat Union") andthe tender notification was for the execution of works in VillagePanchayats selected under AGAMT 2007-2008 in ROC No.B1/1326/2007 dated26.07.2007 in a transparent manner as per the rules laid down in TamilNadu Panchayats Rules, 1998, vide G.O.286 RD (CSS-I) Dept. dated31.12.1998 and the tender notice was sent to all the 25 registeredcontractors of the Panchayat Union which the petitioner himself hasconcurred in the affidavit by stating that he had attended thePanchayat Union office on 06.08.2007 which is the last date forgetting tender schedule;b.proper arrangements were made for issuance of tenderschedule to all concerned on 06.08.2007 by engaging the ExtensionOfficer (RLEGP) and the Deputy Block Development Officer of thePanchayat Union Office and police were informed of the tender well inadvance on 03.08.2007 and however, no police personnel turned up forsecurity on the eventful day and unexpectedly, some unidentifiablemiscreants entered the premises of the Panchayat Union Office atabout 1.48 p.m. on 06.08.2007 and there was utter chaos and themiscreants went on rampage by demolishing the Office Sumo TN 09 G0829 and the office of the Chairperson and immediately, the policewere informed of the untoward incidents and then, they resorted toaction and the tender schedules were issued to the contractors at2.30 p.m. and a complaint was immediately lodged with the Inspectorof Police, Tiruvennainallur Police Station on 06.08.2007 to takeaction against the miscreants who had caused the chaos; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ c.there was no flaw in the procedure in the tender schedulesand transparency was maintained in the issue of tender schedules bythe respondent as per the Act and the petitioner has tried to misleadthis Court by taking advantage of the untoward incidents thatoccurred and has tried to defame the respondent by stating that therespondent, by colluding with the ruling party MLA, refused toentertain the petitioner into the office premises which only portraysthat the petitioner lacks conviction and is intentionally putting theblames on the respondent and tries to victimise the respondent out ofpolitical rivalries among the contractors;d.the respondent has acted well within the capacity of thetender authority or Commissioner and has maintained absolutetransparency in the issue of tender schedules and the petitioner hadnot approached the tender schedule authority for schedules on06.08.2007 for the reasons only known to him and as scheduled, on07.08.2007 at 4.00 p.m., the tender was finalised and opened with theparticipation of 15 contractors out of 25 contractors and since thesealed tenders were opened, there is no question of issuing tenderschedule to the petitioner and the petitioner has not made out a casefor interference by this court and hence, this petition isunsustainable and is liable to be dismissed as it has been filed byabusing the process of law and particularly, when there is no primafacie made out;e.the petitioner's prayer has no grounds and his malicious actis intended only to defame the respondent with ulterior motives as hecould not find any flaw in the procedures adopted by the respondent;f.since this Court granted interim order of not to confirm thetender in M.P. No.1 of 2007, the respondent has not confirmed thetender so far and the tender process has come to a grinding halt andthe entire works under the tender worth more than Rs.1,20,00,000/-under 102 headings are not able to be allotted and the public aresuffering enormously; andg.since the petitioner has not participated in the tender, thebalance of convenience is in favour of the respondent and the interimorder has to be vacated and the writ petition dismissed.4.The petitioners in the impleading petition seeking to impleadthemselves as respondents 2 to 5 in the writ petition are some of theregistered contractors in the Panchayat Union and according to them:a.the tender notification was issued by the respondent forexecution of certain works in the Panchayat Union and arrangementswere made by the respondent for the issue of tender schedules to allinterested persons from 26.07.2007 to 06.08.2007;b.on 06.08.2007, at about 1.50 p.m., the petitioner, alongwith some rowdy elements numbering over 100 persons, entered thepremises of the Panchayat Union Office and criminally intimidated the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ officials there and attempted to restrain the issue of tenderschedules;c.the said incident of rioting and intimidation took placetotally under the influence of Kumaraguru, M.L.A., ThirunavaloorConstituency from AIADMK party; the petitioner is the brother-in-lawof the said Kumaraguru; the impleading respondents and the othercontractors who had assembled there with the challans and forsubmitting tender schedules objected to their riotous behaviour; thepetitioner was not at all present in the scene and it was onlyKumaraguru, MLA and his men who were present and indulging in riotingand attacking the contractors and others including the office staff;d.though the petitioner is a registered contractor, he was notat all interested in participating by submitting his tender inrespect of any of the works as stipulated in tender publication andhas not received any challan to deposit the initial amount forgetting the tender schedule; if he were really interested in gettingthe tender schedule, he would have very well, in advance, made thedeposit for the challan for obtaining tender documents and approachedthe respondent's office and he would not have waited till the lastmoment for receiving the tender schedule and thus, it is clear thatthe petitioner's intention is to scrap the entire procedure in orderto make the other contractors incur loss;e.this writ petition has been filed at the instigation ofKumaraguru, M.L.A. of A.I.A.D.M.K. Party of the ThirunavaloorConstituency who is none other than the petitioner's brother in law;f.it is the petitioner's intention to extract money from theother contractors since all of them refused to pay the protectionmoney and when it did not materialise, the petitioner created problemon 06.08.2007 and thereafter, he has approached this Court with falseaverments and allegations against the respondent and the avermentsand allegations are false as he was not present anywhere near theoffice of the respondent and was neither a complainant nor an accusedin any one of the four FIRs filed in this case; and g.the work under the entire tender schedule is worth aboutmore than a crore of rupees and the impleading respondents havealready paid a sum of Rs.1,36,750/- towards deposit and a sum ofRs.81,840/- towards charges for challan for various works andtherefore, their rights have to be protected and any action towardsre-tender will defeat their rights as they have already made thedeposits and they will be deprived of their money in the event of re-tendering and they have to forfeit the entire Earnest Money Depositas well as lakhs of rupees as paid by them and the petitioner'saction is an abuse of process of the Court without obtaining formsand participating in the tender process and as such, the interimorder has to be vacated.5.A reply affidavit has also been filed by the petitionercontending that: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a.once the challan amount is paid, the approved contractorsare entitled to the schedule for submission of contract and when therespondent himself admits that there was commotion and untowardincident on 06.08.2007, it goes without saying that the respondentshould cancel the tender and conduct a fresh tender as already done ontwo previous occasions, viz., on 29.06.2007 and 21.07.2007;b.he could not participate in the tender since he wasprevented by the ruling party members from entering the PanchayatUnion office and he has no other option except to bring this incidentto the notice of this Court;c.as far as the impleading respondents are concerned, no righthas accured for them since the respondent is yet to confirm the tenderand moreover, the impleading respondents are strong supporters of theruling party and K. Nadanasigamani is the brother of an Hon'bleMinister of the ruling party who has been awarded contract worth Rs.30lakhs even though the money limit of subsisting contracts is Rs.10lacs; in respect of Krishnaveni and Navalan, the money limit has beenexceeded and they have been awarded contracts worth Rs. 50 lakhs each;and d.the petitioner, along with other persons, did not enter thePanchayat Union office and criminally intimidate the officials thereas alleged by the impleading respondents and it is also not correct tostate that the untoward incident took place at the behest of theThirunavaloor MLA and in fact, the said person sustained injuries dueto the commotion created by the ruling party members as per thenewspapers reports and since the ruling party members prevented thepetitioner and other contractors, they have been denied theopportunity of participating in the tender.6.Heard Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A. Edwin Prabakar, learned Additional Government Pleader for therespondent, Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned counsel for the impleadingrespondents 2 to 5.7.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that therespondent has refused to supply the tender documents though thepetitioner has applied with the necessary prescribed fee and it is a clearcase of arbitrary exercise of power and selective discrimination ofparticipants to the benefit of certain individuals and therefore, theaction of the respondent is a clear case of malafideness in administrativeaction and in violation of the Section 9(4) of the Act and it is againstthe principles of natural justice and fair distribution of State large.8.He has particularly argued on paragraph 4 of the counterindicating that unexpectedly some unidentifiable miscreants entered thepremises of the Panchayat Union Office at about 1.48 p.m. on 06.08.2007and there was utter chaos and the miscreants went on rampage bydemolishing the office Sumo and the office of the Chairperson and therewas a complaint lodged with the Inspector of Police and therefore, thesituation was not proper and the tender forms were not issued to thepetitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended thatit is not correct to say that the petitioner, along with 100 persons,entered the office of the respondent and criminally intimidated theofficials there and it is only the M.L.A. of the ruling party who hasprevented the petitioner from participating in the tender process, therebydepriving the petitioner of the fundamental right guaranteed under theConstitution of India. It is also his contention that the respondent hadknowingly and wilfully contravened the provisions of the Act and unlessthis Court comes to the rescue of the petitioner, the respondent willsucceed in his attempt to pick and choose the participants and deny thepetitioner the right at the level of entry itself and therefore, thetender process has to be recalled and re-tender ordered. He has furthercontended that the local M.L.A., with the help of rowdy elements, hasassaulted the petitioner and other contractors in which a criminalcomplaint was lodged before the Tiruvennainallur Police Station atVillupuram and further, at the instance of the local M.L.A. and the rulingparty members, the respondent even refused to entertain the petitionerinside the Panchayat Union office.10.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for thepetitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court reported in (2004) 4 MLJ523 in the matter of M. Saravanachelvam vs. The Commissioner, R.S.Mangalam Panchayat Union, R.S. Mangalam, Ramnad District and others andthe relevant paragraphs read as under:"4According to the petitioner, after remitting the cost,he approached the first respondent for the grant of tenderschedule. The first respondent had stated that the tenderschedules were not ready and that it would be ready at 4.00 p.m.which the petitioner can collect at 4.00 p.m. However, even at4.00 p.m., the tender schedules were not issued. The petitioneralleges that about 300 persons belonging to the third respondentcame to the Panchayat Union office along with his son, mobbed thePanchayat Union office and prevented the first respondent fromissuing the tender schedule. The second respondent was colludingwith the third respondent and did not issue the tender schedule.23The facts of this case, disclose a dismal pattern ofconduct which is being brought to the notice of this Courtfrequently, namely, that not even tender documents are issued toall eligible contractors and that the supply of the documents isrestricted only to a favoured syndicate or individuals. Some ofthe officials and non-officials who wield the power at variouslevels and involved in the process of tender, appear to thinkthat they are above the law and even after the matters arebrought to the notice of the High Court, appear to adopt tacticseven to render orders of Court ineffective by total disregardeven to the process of Court. Even after the passing of thelegislation under the Tamil Nadu Transparency of Tenders Act,1998, the grant of many of the tenders, small or big, do notconform to the provisions of the said Act and Regulations. Acitizen has to come before this Court even to obtain tenderdocuments and even after orders are issued, auction isdeliberately postponed and different methodology is adopted to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deny the benefits of the order. Not only the contention that thepetitioner went away after paying the initial amount and that hedid not return till 5.45 p.m. sounds very artificial andimprobable, but is also belied by the subsequent conduct of therespondents, as dealt with above, inclusive of filing of falseaffidavits regarding the telegram sent by the petitioner.24In fact, this Court, on earlier occasions, in similarcases, had directed the Government to ensure that the officialsin the lower level do not indulge in such high-handed practice ofeven refusing to give the tender documents to the eligiblecontractors. Even though there is a general instruction to theeffect that any contractor, if he chooses to receive the tenderdocument by post or courier, that also should be complied withsubject to the contractor making the additional payment, asrequired, the same state of affairs continue.25I am, therefore, fully convinced that the overall factsstated in the affidavit resulting in unfair denial of tenderdocuments to the petition is amply established. The firstrespondent, whether by himself, for his own reasons or at thebehest of someone, had acted in a clandestine manner in disregardto his duties and also with an intention to deny the petitionernot only his lawful rights but also to circumvent the orders ofthis Court. Cancellation of the first item of work is contraryto the specific orders of this Court. The conduct of theCommissioner, namely, whoever was the individual discharging hisduties at the relevant period, is highly improper. The firstcounter affidavit had been filed by one Dorairaj and theadditional counter affidavit had been filed by P.V.Muthuramalingam. Dorairaj has been impleaded by name in the writpetition. It is made clear that whoever was the officialfunctioning as the Commissioner at the relevant point of time, isanswerable and if he is not willing to speak the truth, namely,at whose behest he was acting, he has to reap the consequences.Any directions against him should have deterring effect and awarning to such officials who feel that extraneous factors aremore important than rule of law."11.The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent hascontended that the respondent has acted well within his capacity and inaccordance with the provisions of the Act and has maintained absolutetransparency in the issue of tender schedules and the petitioner has notapproached the tender issuing authority on 06.08.2007 for the reasons bestknown to him.12.He has further contended that on 07.08.2007, at about 4 p.m., thetender was finalised and opened with the participation of 15 contractorsout of 25 contractors and since sealed tenders have been opened, thequestion of issuing tender schedule to the petitioner does not arise andthe petitioner has not made out a case for any interference by this Court.It is his further contention that the respondent has adopted the procedurecontemplated in the Act and has maintained transparency in the issue of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ tender schedules and any interference at this stage will only prejudicethe larger public interest and the tender works worth about Rs.1.20 croresunder 102 headings are not able to be allotted and the public aresuffering enormously.13.On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for theimpleading respondents has contended that the petitioner, along with rowdyelements numbering about 100 persons, entered the Panchayat Union Officeand criminally intimidated the officials there and attempted to restrainthe issue of tender schedules and this incident of rioting andintimidation took place totally under the influence of the M.L.A. of theThirunavaloor Constituency from AIADMK party who is also the DistrictSecretary of the party and the petitioner is the brother-in-law of thesaid M.L.A. It is also his contention that the impleading respondents andother contractors who had assembled there with the challans and forsubmitting tender schedules objected to their riotous behaviour of thepetitioner and other rowdy elements.14.The learned Senior Counsel has denied the allegations andaverments of the petitioner and submitted that the tender is worth aboutmore than a crore of rupees and the impleading respondents have paid hugeamount towards deposit and other charges and the tender has already beenopened and in the event of a re-tender, the impleading respondents will beput to irreparable loss and hardship and the petitioner has, in fact, notat all participated in the tender process and he has no right to seek anorder for a re-tender.15.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel forthe parties.16.Admittedly, the respondent had issued a tender notification dated26.07.2007 for execution of certain works in the Panchayat Union and thetender notification had been sent to 25 registered contractors includingthe petitioner. It appears that the entire work under the tender is worthmore than Rs.1.20 crores under 102 headings. It is also not in disputethat the last date for issue of tender documents is 6th August 2007.17.According to Section 9(4) of the Act, the Tender InvitingAuthority shall supply the schedule of rates and tender documents in suchmanner and in such places as may be prescribed to every intending tendererwho has applied for such document. In the case on hand, it is seen thatas per the rules, arrangements for issuing tender schedules to allconcerned were made on 06.08.2007 by engaging the Extension Officer(RLEGP) and the Deputy Block Development Officer at the Panchayat Unionoffice and the police were informed of the tender well in advance on03.08.2007; but no police personnel had turned up for security on thatday. It is also seen that some miscreants entered the premises of thePanchayat Union office and there was utter chaos and there was also anuntoward incident which is admitted by the respondent in paragraph of hiscounter. Since paragraph 4 of the counter is more relevant forconsideration, the same is extracted as under: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "It is further submitted that the respondent hadproperly arranged for the issue of tender schedules toall concerned on 06.08.2007 by engaging the ExtensionOfficer (RLEGP) and the Deputy Block DevelopmentOfficer of Tiruvennainallur Panchayat Union Office andthe police were informed of the tender well in advanceon 03.08.207 and however and no police personnel turnedup for the security on the eventful day. Unexpectedlysome unidentifiable miscreants entered the premises ofthe Tiruvennainallur Panchayat Union Office at about1.48 PM on 06.08.2007 and there was utter chaos and themiscreants went on rampage by demolishing the OfficeSumo TN 09-G-0829 and the Office of the Chairpersonand immediately the police were informed of theuntoward incidents and then they resorted to action andthe tender schedules were issued the Contractors at2.30 p.m. and a complaint was immediately lodged to theInspector of Police, Tiruvennainallur, P.S. On06.08.2007 to take action the miscreants who had causedthe chaos."18.From a reading of the above statement of the respondent, it isclear that there was a chaos and confusion on 06.08.2007 from 1.48 p.m.onwards and in the process, some miscreants had entered the respondent'spremises and chaos was created on the last day of issuance of tender formsby the respondent. It is also seen from the averments in thepetitioner's affidavit as well as contesting respondent that there werepolitical reasons and the presence of some miscreants has created certainchaos. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of these issuesand is concerned only with the question as to whether there was any properarrangement made by the respondent for issuance of the tender forms.19.From a perusal of the material records available before thisCourt, it appears that there was no congenial or peaceful atmosphere on06.08.2007 only from 1.48 p.m. onwards in the place where arrangementswere made for issuance of tender forms. Therefore, the possibility ofissuing tender forms even assuming that the petitioner had an intention toapply appears to be doubtful. It is also seen that clause 5 of the termsand conditions of the tender schedule prescribes that there is noacceptance of demand draft in the case of contractor in question.Therefore, whether the petitioner had the intention to take the demanddraft form or not is not the question and it is only the procedure, i.e.whether he came before the tender inviting authority for payment and toget challan pursuant to which only he can apply and then receive thetender forms, which has to be considered. In this case, the situation wasnot conducive to allow the petitioner to come and receive the tenderforms. But, it also appears that some contractors have obtained tenderforms and their participation was over and it is only because of a rivalrybetween two groups, the petitioner was not in a position to enter therespondent's premises and as such, he was denied the opportunity ofgetting tender forms and to participate in the tender process. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20.The objects and reasons of the Act are very clear that there mustbe fairness and reasonableness to every person who is eligible toparticipate in the tender proceedings. It is also to be borne in mindthat a single person alone cannot apply for all the items numbering about102 headings and prevent others from participating. Therefore, if rivalgroups intend to stall the proceedings, then, the common man who is havingeligibility cannot go before the tender inviting authority who isconducting the tender process. Though chaos was created and somemiscreants entered the Panchayat Union office on 06.08.2007 at 1.48 p.m.,some of the contractors have already got the tender forms and have alsoapplied and in fact, participated in the tender process and the tender hasalready been opened and now, only the confirmation of tender has beenstayed by this Court for a limited period.21.In an identical circumstance, this Court, in its judgmentreported in (2004) 4 MLJ 523 in the case of M. Saravanachelvam vs. TheCommissioner, R.S. Mangalam Panchayat Union, R.S. Mangalam, RamnadDistrict and others, had directed the Government to ensure that theofficials in the lower level do not indulge in such a high-handed practiceof even refusing to give tender documents to the eligible contractors.Even though there is a general instruction to the effect that anycontractor, if he chooses to receive the tender document by post orcourier, that also should be complied with subject to the contractormaking the additional payment, as required, the same state of affairscontinue. Though the respondent has followed the procedure till the timewhen chaos came into play, he has not acted in the manner known to lawsubsequent thereto and has not taken any efforts to prevent chaos in orderto perform his lawful duties. Of course, this situation is due to thereasons set out above. In this case, the situation was not proper andwhat steps had he taken to call the police knowing well in advance that hehad informed the police as early as on 03.08.2007 itself, much prior tothe last date of issuing the tender forms? He has no reason as to why thepolice personnel were not present on that day. Therefore, this Court hasreasons to believe that the Commissioner / tender inviting authority hasnot acted in the manner known to law as per the provisions of the Act in atransparent way to issue tender forms to the petitioner. That being thecase, the tender process cannot be said to have been conducted by therespondent in a fair, reasonable and transparent manner insofar as thepetitioner is concerned from 1.48 p.m. onwards on 06.08.2007 andaccordingly, the tender process conducted by the respondent after 1.48p.m. on 06.08.2007 has to be re-called and a re-tender has to be ordered.However, this Court feels that the petitioner alone cannot stall theentire tender process as he has not spelt out in his affidavit in clearterms as to what are the items of work he intends to apply. As such, thisCourt is not inclined to recall the entire tender process and in that viewof the matter, the tender process conducted in a fair and reasonablemanner upto 1.48 p.m. on 06.08.2007 need not be interfered with and it hasto be kept in tact and it is only the tender process which had taken placeafter 1.48 p.m. on 06.08.2007 has to be recalled in view of the reasonthat only thereafter, there was some chaos and confusion due to a rivalrybetween two groups. It is seen that except the petitioner, no otherperson has come before this Court alleging that there was a chaos or that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there is no transparency in the tender process conducted by therespondent. Therefore, since it appears that the petitioner is aggrievedas he was not issued tender forms as per Section 9(4) of the Act andthereby not being allowed to participate in the tender process and sincethis Court is very much disturbed by the unwarranted and unpleasantsituation created by two rival groups in the process of a public tenderaimed at implementing a particular scheme/project meant for the people ofthe society and bearing in mind the fact that the mis-conduct of the tworival groups with a view to stall the tender process should not hamper thebetter governance and welfare of the society, without interfering with thetender process conducted on 06.08.2007 upto 1.48 p.m. and without goinginto the vires of the Notification impugned in this writ petition, thisCourt directs the respondent to issue tender forms to the petitioner inrespect of specific items of work in which he intends to participate andthereafter, the respondent shall proceed further in conducting the tenderas per the law established from the stage when chaos hampered the tenderprocess and consider the case of the petitioner along with 15 othercontractors who have already participated in the tender process, takingnote of the fact that the scheme/project to be implemented is of paramountpublic interest.In fine, the tender process is interfered with to the extent indicatedabove and the writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions.No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.cadToThe Block Development Officer(Village Panchayat)Tiruvennainallur Panchayat UnionVillupuram District+ 1 CC To Mr. S.Saravana Kumar, Advocate SR NO.58271+ 1 CC To Mr. A.Edwin Prabhakar, Advocate SR NO. 58258+ 1 CC To Mr. K.Azhaguraman, Advocate SR NO.58144W.P. No.26667 of 2007kk[co]gp/26.9.