Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 2424. Without going into the merits of the Writ Petitions, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has been passedcontrary to the decision of the Supreme Court, wherein it istime and again reiterated, that the reasons should be the heart-beat of any…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED:06.07.2011CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMARWP(MD)No.7469 of 2011 And MP(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011V.Magesh: Petitioner-Vs-1.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Munneer Pallam, Tirunelveli.
K.Shanmugam, The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Munneer Pallam, Tirunelveli.:Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, praying for the issuance of Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings of the firstrespondent dated 29.06.2011 and quash the same in so far theTASMAC Shop No. 10707 is concerned and to consequentially directthe first respondent to open and consider the tender schedulesubmitted by the petitioner as per the tender notificationNa.Ka.No. A1/1500/2011 dated 15.06.2011 published in Dinakaran, dated 18.06.2011.For Petitioner: Mr. D.VenkateshFor Respondents: Mr.K.Mahendran SpecialGovernment PleaderORDERThe impugned proceeding dated 29.06.2011 of the DistrictManager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC),Munneer Pallam, Tirunelveli, has been passed on the sole ground“Administrative reasons”. It does not reflect the actualreasons for cancellation of the earlier tender, notified for theTASMAC Bar at Tirunelveli District and for the other barsmentioned in the order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties submittedthat earlier when the abovesaid impugned proceeding waschallenged in W.P.Nos.7355 to 7357 of 2011, this Court, by acommon order, dated 01.07.2011, directed opening of the tender.
Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleaderappearing for the TASMAC submitted that tender would be openedtomorrow. His submission is placed on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Operative part
Without going into the merits of the Writ Petitions, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has been passedcontrary to the decision of the Supreme Court, wherein it istime and again reiterated, that the reasons should be the heart-beat of any administrative decision. As the order does notreflect the same, this Court is inclined to set aside theimpugned order, directing re-tender for various TASMAC Shopswith attached Bar. The respondents shall open the tender asdirected by this Court, as stated supra, as expeditiously aspossible, to avoid any delay in processing of the tenders. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Nocosts. Sd/-Deputy Registrar (Accounts)/ TRUE COPY /Assistant RegistrarTo:1.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation,(TASMAC),Munneer Pallam, Tirunelveli.2.K.Shanmugam, The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation,(TASMAC),Munneer Pallam, Tirunelveli.+1CC to Mr.D.Venkatesh, Advocate. SR.No.21778.VsgRP/06.07.2011/2P/4C.W.P.(MD).No. 7469 of 2011 AndM.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 201106.07.2011
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.