S.Eswari Sundaramoorth Vs. 1.The State Rep.By Its Secretary, - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/65800
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnSep-09-2015
JudgeR.Subbiah
AppellantS.Eswari Sundaramoorth
Respondent1.The State Rep.By Its Secretary,
Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated :09. 09.2015 coram the honourable mr.justice r.subbiah w.p.(md)no.7266 of 2015 and m.p.(md).nos.2 and 3 of 2015 s.eswari sundaramoorthi ... petitioner vs. 1.the state rep.by its secretary, government of tamil nadu, st.george fort, secretariat, chennai. 2.the collector, virudhunagar district, virudhunagar. 3.vathirayiruppu major panchayat, rep.by its executive officer, vaithirayiruppu, virudhunagar district. 4.pechiammal, the president of vathirayiruppu major panchayat, vathirayiruppu, virudhunagar district. 5.papathi, the vice president of vathirayiruppu major panchayat, vathirayiruppu, virudhunagar district. 6.jeyachandrasekar, executive officer of major panchayat, vathirayiruppu, virudhunagar district. 7.m.gunasekaran, the assistant director of major panchayat, vathirayiruppu, virudhunagar district. 8.shanmuga sundaram, assistant engineer of major panchayat, vathirayiruppu, virudhunagar district. ... respondents writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the tender notification in na.ka.no.458 of 2014 dated 13.04.2015 on the file of the third respondent herein and to quash the same as far as item nos.3,9,11,12 and 13 is concerned and direct the first respondent to supervise the activities of the fourth respondent panchayat. !for petitioner : m/s.k.r.laxman ^for r.1 to 3 : mr.m.rajarajan government advocate for r.4 to 8 : no appearance. :order this writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the tender notification in na.ka.no.458 of 2014 dated 13.04.2015 on the file of the third respondent herein and to quash the same as far as item nos.3,9,11,12 and 13 is concerned and direct the first respondent to supervise the activities of the fourth respondent panchayat.2. the petitioner was elected as counselor of the fifth ward major panchayat of vathirayiruppu, virudhunagar district. while so, through the impugned notification, the third respondent herein had invited the public to participate in the tender auction for the job work to be done in the third respondent panchayat jurisdiction under 24 heads. out of the said 24 items, it is alleged that there are about five items that had already been completed through earlier auction proceedings itself. however, the third respondent has once again called for to do the work. 2.1. it is further averred in the affidavit that as far as item no.3 is concerned, which is notified in the notification of the respondent dated 13.04.2015, the paver stones are in good condition, which need not be relaid again. however, the third respondent has once again called for the tender in order to swindle the amount pertaining to the panchayat. similarly, the work relating to item nos.9,11,12 and 13 have already been done through earlier auction proceedings itself. still, once again, the third respondent has called for the tender for the best reason known to them. the sum and substance of the affidavits that for the work already completed in respect of certain items, the third respondent, without any rhyme or reason, had once again called for the tender, to swindle the money belonging to the third respondent panchayat. hence, she has come forward with this writ petition to prevent the financial irregularities from being done by the third respondent.3. the writ petition was admitted on 01.06.2015 and an order of interim status quo was granted on the said date.4. on appearance, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner in this writ petition. it is further averred in the counter affidavit that in accordance with the resolution passed by vathiraiyarippu town panchayat, wherein, the petitioner is a sitting councillor and through a resolution no.165, dated 28.11.2014, 24 works were selected under 'general funds' for the year 2014- 2015. the administrative sanction was already accorded by the competent authority, namely, the assistant director of town panchayat vide roc.61229/2014 dated 05.02.2015. the tender notification impugned in this writ petition was caused wide publicity through local dailies as well as district tender bulletin by calling for bids upto 3 p.m on 30.04.2015. accordingly, bid was opened at the scheduled time and date and the highest bids offered by 24 bidders were accepted and approved by the town panchayat council on 14.05.2015 vide resolution no.246 in which the petitioner herein is a party. 4.1. in accordance with the approval accorded by the town panchayat council, work order was granted to the successful bidders in roc.no.45/2014-2015 dated 20.05.2010 and they have commenced the execution work which is being constantly monitored by the assistant engineer, vaithirayiruppu town panchayat, virudhunagar. further, paver block were not laid in muthukoil street and keela theru lane at ward no.3 ward no.6 subburayar street, ward no.12 in five lanes and at ward no.17 urani karai street. the above said street is now not suitable for public transportation due to its poor conditions. in order to satiate the need of the public and after inspection by the competent authority, the work was selected and on the resolution passed by the council, the work was taken up on the basis of the impugned tender notification. the petitioner is not even able to distinguish between town panchayat and major panchayat as she has stated in the long cause title 'major panchayat' where vathirayiruppu is only a selection grade town panchayat functioning under the statue, tamil nadu district municipalities act,1920. hence, the third respondent has prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.5. when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the panchayat under the guise of doing developmental activities in vaithirayiruppu, virudhunagar district, is trying to siphon off the funds belonging to the panchayat concerned through a resolution without any approval from the members of the panchayat and through a resolution, it is trying to do the developmental activities, which is violative of the provisions of the tamil nadu panchayat act. though as many as 24 items were listed out in the tender notification, the irregularities are apparent on the face of the record in respect of item nos.3,9,11 to 13, and therefore, the petitioner sent a representation to the district collector. however, the inspector of panchayat who is the custodian of the panchayat seldom takes action against the panchayat concerned. in support of her contention, the petitioner has produced number of photographs to substantiate her claim.6. the learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the allegations against the panchayat are frivolous in nature. the panchayat started carrying out the welfare activities after a resolution was passed by its members. further, wherever the roads are not in good condition or if it is in a battered condition, the respondents are carrying out their work. the tender notification was properly put on notice and wide publicity was given through local dailies as well as district tender bulletin by calling for bids upto 3 p.m on 30.04.2015. accordingly, bids were opened at the scheduled time and date and the highest bids offered by 24 bidders were accepted and approved by the town panchayat council in 14.05.2015 vide resolution no.246 and for some of the items, work has also been started and it has made some headway. in the said resolution, the petitioner is also one of the signatories. at the time making resolution, she did not make any voice or raised her objection. on account of the interim order, now, the works are coming to a grinding halt. the learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon a judgment reported in 2014-4-l.w.562, r.eakamparam & others vs. government of tamil nadu and others in support of her contentions.7. in reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has not participated in the alleged meeting dated 14.05.2015 and tendered her signature in the alleged resolution. further, she denies her signature too available in the said resolution.8. keeping the submissions made on either side, i carefully paid my attention and perused the materials available on record.9. the sum and substance of the contention of the petitioner is that though 24 items were called for by the respondents through the impugned tender notification, in which, according to the petitioner, for the five of the items, paver blocks have already been laid in the earlier auction and they are in good condition and in order to just swindle the money belonging to the panchayat, the respondents under the guise of doing developmental activities, have once again called for tender notification. however, the learned counsel for the third respondent brought to the attention of this court that a meeting was held on 14.05.2015 in connection with the impugned tender notification, in which, the petitioner is one of the signatories. the petitioner name finds a place at s.no.7. subsequently, a resolution was passed in this regard. therefore, the attitude of the petitioner is nothing but a veiled attempt to impose her will through this writ petition. further, it was properly displayed in the tender bulletin notice as well as in the local dailies as to the works which are being taken up by the said panchayat. therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. in view of the above, this writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. accordingly, it is dismissed. no costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. to 1.the district collector, office of the district collector, madurai. 2.the block development officer,(vp) madurai west panchayat union, madurai. 3.the panchayat president, vialoor panchayat, madurai district.
Judgment:

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :

09. 09.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.(MD)No.7266 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).Nos.2 and 3 of 2015 S.Eswari Sundaramoorthi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State rep.by its Secretary, Government of Tamil nadu, St.George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 3.Vathirayiruppu Major Panchayat, rep.by its Executive Officer, Vaithirayiruppu, Virudhunagar District. 4.Pechiammal, The President of Vathirayiruppu Major Panchayat, Vathirayiruppu, Virudhunagar District. 5.Papathi, The Vice President of Vathirayiruppu Major Panchayat, Vathirayiruppu, Virudhunagar District. 6.Jeyachandrasekar, Executive officer of Major Panchayat, Vathirayiruppu, Virudhunagar District. 7.M.Gunasekaran, The Assistant Director of Major Panchayat, Vathirayiruppu, Virudhunagar District. 8.Shanmuga Sundaram, Assistant Engineer of Major Panchayat, Vathirayiruppu, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the tender notification in Na.Ka.No.458 of 2014 dated 13.04.2015 on the file of the third respondent herein and to quash the same as far as item Nos.3,9,11,12 and 13 is concerned and direct the first respondent to supervise the activities of the fourth respondent Panchayat. !For Petitioner : M/s.K.R.Laxman ^For R.1 to 3 : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate For R.4 to 8 : No appearance. :ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the tender notification in Na.Ka.No.458 of 2014 dated 13.04.2015 on the file of the third respondent herein and to quash the same as far as item Nos.3,9,11,12 and 13 is concerned and direct the first respondent to supervise the activities of the fourth respondent Panchayat.

2. The petitioner was elected as Counselor of the fifth ward major Panchayat of Vathirayiruppu, Virudhunagar District. While so, through the impugned notification, the third respondent herein had invited the public to participate in the tender auction for the job work to be done in the third respondent Panchayat jurisdiction under 24 heads. Out of the said 24 items, it is alleged that there are about five items that had already been completed through earlier auction proceedings itself. However, the third respondent has once again called for to do the work. 2.1. It is further averred in the affidavit that as far as item No.3 is concerned, which is notified in the notification of the respondent dated 13.04.2015, the paver stones are in good condition, which need not be relaid again. However, the third respondent has once again called for the tender in order to swindle the amount pertaining to the Panchayat. Similarly, the work relating to item Nos.9,11,12 and 13 have already been done through earlier auction proceedings itself. Still, once again, the third respondent has called for the tender for the best reason known to them. The sum and substance of the affidavits that for the work already completed in respect of certain items, the third respondent, without any rhyme or reason, had once again called for the tender, to swindle the money belonging to the third respondent Panchayat. Hence, she has come forward with this Writ Petition to prevent the financial irregularities from being done by the third respondent.

3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 01.06.2015 and an order of interim status quo was granted on the said date.

4. On appearance, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that in accordance with the resolution passed by Vathiraiyarippu Town Panchayat, wherein, the petitioner is a sitting Councillor and through a Resolution No.165, dated 28.11.2014, 24 works were selected under 'General Funds' for the year 2014- 2015. The administrative sanction was already accorded by the competent authority, namely, the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat vide Roc.61229/2014 dated 05.02.2015. The tender notification impugned in this Writ Petition was caused wide publicity through local dailies as well as District Tender Bulletin by calling for bids upto 3 p.m on 30.04.2015. Accordingly, bid was opened at the scheduled time and date and the highest bids offered by 24 bidders were accepted and approved by the Town Panchayat Council on 14.05.2015 vide Resolution No.246 in which the petitioner herein is a party. 4.1. In accordance with the approval accorded by the Town Panchayat Council, work order was granted to the successful bidders in Roc.No.45/2014-2015 dated 20.05.2010 and they have commenced the execution work which is being constantly monitored by the Assistant Engineer, Vaithirayiruppu Town Panchayat, Virudhunagar. Further, paver block were not laid in Muthukoil Street and Keela Theru Lane at Ward No.3 Ward No.6 Subburayar Street, Ward No.12 in five lanes and at Ward No.17 Urani Karai Street. The above said street is now not suitable for public transportation due to its poor conditions. In order to satiate the need of the public and after inspection by the competent authority, the work was selected and on the resolution passed by the Council, the work was taken up on the basis of the impugned tender notification. The petitioner is not even able to distinguish between town Panchayat and Major Panchayat as she has stated in the long cause title 'Major Panchayat' where Vathirayiruppu is only a Selection Grade Town Panchayat functioning under the statue, Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act,1920. Hence, the third respondent has prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition.

5. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Panchayat under the guise of doing developmental activities in Vaithirayiruppu, Virudhunagar District, is trying to siphon off the funds belonging to the Panchayat concerned through a resolution without any approval from the members of the Panchayat and through a resolution, it is trying to do the developmental activities, which is violative of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. Though as many as 24 items were listed out in the tender notification, the irregularities are apparent on the face of the record in respect of item Nos.3,9,11 to 13, and therefore, the petitioner sent a representation to the District Collector. However, the Inspector of Panchayat who is the custodian of the Panchayat seldom takes action against the Panchayat concerned. In support of her contention, the petitioner has produced number of photographs to substantiate her claim.

6. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the allegations against the Panchayat are frivolous in nature. The Panchayat started carrying out the welfare activities after a resolution was passed by its Members. Further, wherever the roads are not in good condition or if it is in a battered condition, the respondents are carrying out their work. The tender notification was properly put on notice and wide publicity was given through local dailies as well as District Tender Bulletin by calling for bids upto 3 p.m on 30.04.2015. Accordingly, bids were opened at the scheduled time and date and the highest bids offered by 24 bidders were accepted and approved by the Town Panchayat Council in 14.05.2015 vide Resolution No.246 and for some of the items, work has also been started and it has made some headway. In the said resolution, the petitioner is also one of the signatories. At the time making resolution, she did not make any voice or raised her objection. On account of the interim order, now, the works are coming to a grinding halt. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon a judgment reported in 2014-4-L.W.562, R.Eakamparam & Others Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others in support of her contentions.

7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has not participated in the alleged meeting dated 14.05.2015 and tendered her signature in the alleged resolution. Further, she denies her signature too available in the said resolution.

8. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I carefully paid my attention and perused the materials available on record.

9. The sum and substance of the contention of the petitioner is that though 24 items were called for by the respondents through the impugned tender notification, in which, according to the petitioner, for the five of the items, paver blocks have already been laid in the earlier auction and they are in good condition and in order to just swindle the money belonging to the Panchayat, the respondents under the guise of doing developmental activities, have once again called for tender notification. However, the learned counsel for the third respondent brought to the attention of this Court that a meeting was held on 14.05.2015 in connection with the impugned tender notification, in which, the petitioner is one of the signatories. The petitioner name finds a place at S.No.7. Subsequently, a resolution was passed in this regard. Therefore, the attitude of the petitioner is nothing but a veiled attempt to impose her will through this Writ Petition. Further, it was properly displayed in the tender bulletin notice as well as in the local dailies as to the works which are being taken up by the said Panchayat. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this Writ Petition. In view of the above, this Writ Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. To 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Madurai. 2.The Block Development Officer,(VP) Madurai West Panchayat Union, Madurai. 3.The Panchayat President, Vialoor Panchayat, Madurai District.