SAKTHIVEL Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No. 30668 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, particularly, the second respondent to provide to the petitioner the Tender Application in pursuance to the tender notice in Se. Ma.Tho.e.5050/Oppandha Pulli/2012 dated 5.11.2012 issued by the second respondent forthwith and further direct the respondents to receive the tender application from the petitioner in respect of Shop No. 4127, situated at Rajaji Road, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District so as to enable the petitioner to participate in the tender to be opened on 23.11.2012 and further direct the respondents to videograph the entire tender opening process to ensure transparency in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Act. Heard Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 30668 to 30685, 30814 to 30829 and 31045 to 31051 of 2012; Mr. M. Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 30832, 30833, 30877 to 30879 and 31126 to 31135; Mrs. AL. Gandhimathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 30957 to 30967, 30969 to 30979 and 31146 to 31148; Mr. R. Thirugnanam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 31142 to 31145, 31166 to 31170 and 31178 to 31182 of 2012 and Ms. D. Saraswathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 31159 to 31162 of 2012 and M/s. S. Muthuraj, learned Government Advocate (TASMAC) and N. Alagu Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in all the cases.

(2.) THE relief sought for in all the writ petitions is almost similar. With the consent of both sides, all the writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal.

(3.) THE main grievance of the petitioner in all the cases is that the respondents are not issuing the tender forms to the petitioner.