DURAIMANIKAM Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While W.P. (MD) No.6647 of 2020 has been preferred by one Duraimanikam, calling into question the legality and validity of the letter dated 19.05.2020 of the fifth respondent, in and by which, the contract for rehabilitation of Edaiyathimangalam Tank, has been awarded to the ninth respondent, who, in his capacity as the President, represents Edaiyathimangalam Eri Pasanatharargal Sangam, W.P. (MD) No.6655 of 2020 has been preferred by Edaiyathimangalam Periyakulam Kanmai Pasana Vivasaigal Nala Sangam, assailing the correctness of G.O. (Ms.) No.98, Public Works (W1) Department dated 22.04.2020 insofar as it relates to Serial No.16 qua grant of work order by the fifth respondent to the ninth respondent for rehabilitation of Edaiyathimangalam Tank, without following G.O. (Ms.) No. 12, Public Works (W1) Department dated 21.01.2017 and for a direction as well, to the respondents 5 and 6, forbearing them from allowing the ninth respondent to proceed with the work order issued in his favour.

(2.) In view of the common thread running through both the writ petitions, they are considered and decided by this common order.

(3.) It is alleged in these public interest litigations that the authorities have awarded the contract of Kudimaramathu work (reconstruction of sluices, field channels improvements, strengthening of tank bund and desilting of supply channel) of the Edaiyathimangalam Tank to the ninth respondent whose association does not represent the majority aayacutdars (water users of the tank). It is further alleged that the said work should have been awarded via public auction.