Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 9456
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
R.Krishnamoorthi – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, HR & CE, Nungambakkam, Chennai – Respondent
W.P.No.6320 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.J.Bharathi Raja
For the Respondents: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)
Judicial intervention in tender processes is limited when upset prices are deemed reasonable.
Headnote:The petitioner challenges a tender notice issued by the fourth respondent, seeking a quash due to allegations of illegality and arbitrariness. The court finds no merit in the petitioner’s claims, asserting that the upset price is reasonable and the tender process aims to prevent cartel formation. Consequently, the application for judicial intervention is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tender notice based on upset price. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. final ruling dismisses the writ petition. (Para 4) |
O R D E R
The writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to the impugned tender notice in Malai Murasu dated 02.02.2025, on the file of the fourth respondent and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
2. The case of the petitioner is that when the respondent authorities are auctioning the shop that is built on behalf of the Temple, which is very near to the Hosur Bus Stand, the upset price is fixed as Rs.10,415/-, which is very low and the shop will fetch more amount. If the petitioner goes only by tender alone, there is every possibility of formation of syndicate and therefore, it is better to go by way of public auction. 3. At the outset, I am unable to accept the said condition because the concept of tender itself came into the place only to prevent the cartels being formed in public auction. It is always the secret tender which avoids the cartel formation better than the public auction. In any event, the upset price fixed is not too low so that this court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in interfering with the matter. It is stated that the shop measure 100 square feet and therefore, the minimum upset price is fixed at Rs.10,400/-, which does not call for any interference. Besides when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader also brought to the notice of this court that the petitioner himself has participated in the tender for two shops and if that be so, nothing prevented the petitioner from quoting Rs.30,000/- or Rs.40,000/- as the case may be.
4. Therefore, finding no merits in this matter, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 21.02.2025 skr Neutral Citation : No D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
skr To
1. The Commissioner, HR & CE, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, (Jewel/ Auditing), 3. The Joint – Commissioner, HR & CE, Thiruvannamalai.
4. The Executive, HR & CE, Arulmigu Kaligambal Kamatcheeswarar Temple, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
21.02.2025
