(1.) IN all these writ petitions the petitioners are challenging the order of the District Collector, Pudukottai, rejecting their tenders. Since the issue involved is common and an identical order has been passed by the respondent, the same may be disposed of by the following common order.
(2.) A Notification was published in Pudukottai District Gazette (Gazette No.4) on 1.3.95 calling for tender applications for the lease of stone quarry measuring 2.2.95. Hectares in S.No.65 of Kalkudi Village, 1.74.09 hectares in S.No.18 of Vittamapatti Village, 0.68.5. Hectares in S.No.74 of Boothakudi Village, 1.35.0. Hectares in S.No.149/2 of Veerapatti Village, 0.31.5 hectares in S.No.2/11 of Panangudi Village and 0.50.0. Hectares in S.No.251 of Kunnanthur Village Pudukottai District for a period of 5 years from 1995 -96 to 1999 -2000 in respect of stone quarries and for 3 years from 1995 -96 to 1997 -98 in respect of gravel and pebble quarries. The last date for receipt of tender applications was fixed on 22.3.95 and the opening of tender was fixed on 23.3.95. In pursuance of the above notification all the petitioners submitted their tenders. According to them, their offer in the tender was the highest and above the upset price fixed by the respondent. When such is the position, the respondent after long delay without assigning any reason, by order dated 31.7.95 rejected their tenders and ordered re -auction. Aggrieved against the said order of rejection, all the petitioners have approached this Court to quash the said order of rejection and also direct the respondent to confirm the petitioners - offers made in their tender applications in respect of the quarry mentioned therein.
(3.) IN the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. V. Sanjeevi, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions and Mr. K. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent in all the cases.