A SOOSAI MARY Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is listed today for admission and I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for respondent.

(2.) THE prayer in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned communication of the respondent dated 31.05.2006 vide. Ref. Letter No.Va.P.Va.Tho.A/Ma.Ni.A Committee (F 654 Pilot Schemes 3/06 and the consequential re-tender notification dated 02.06.2006 vide Call No.1/2006-2007/Va.Tho.A/A.Na.Va/ Trichy, as published in the newspaper 'Dinakaran' on 07.06.2006 in so far as the work viz., repairing, renovation and reformation of Pannai Eri in Keezhakottai Village, Sivagangai Taluk and quash the same.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further brought to the notice of this Court the reply to the counter filed by the petitioner and submitted as follows:- THE averments made by the respondent that the petitioner did not appear on 15.05.2006 is false. Indeed, the representative of the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 15.05.2006 and presented himself in front of the Head Draftsman and Junior Divisional Officer, who were in the office on 15.05.2006 on that date between 11.15 am to 12.15 pm but the respondent was not in the office. Later, the petitioner's representative was advised to contact the respondent over telephone. When the respondent was contacted over phone, he directed to hand over the papers and letter reducing the price. Accordingly, the letter reducing the price was also given in the format, as directed by the subordinates of the respondent.