Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64708
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Dhandapani, J
S.Satheeskumar – Appellant
Versus
The Executive Engineer(WRD) – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.18841 of 2026 | W.P(MD)No.17688 of 2026 | W.P(MD)No.17689 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.J. Karthick
For the Respondents: B. Saravanan, K.R. Shivashankari
A writ petition is rendered infructuous and closed when the respondent redresses the petitioner's grievance during the pendency of the proceedings, such as by withdrawing the impugned order.
Headnote:The petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a corrigendum and a writ of mandamus to permit their participation in various e-tenders issued by the respondent. The court noted that the impugned corrigendum had been withdrawn and the petitioners were permitted to participate in the tender process. The primary issue was whether the petitioners should be permitted to participate in the tender process and whether the corrigendum was illegal. The court reasoned that since the respondent had already withdrawn the corrigendum and allowed the petitioners to participate, the grievances had been redressed. In view of the same, nothing survives for further adjudication in these writ petitions and the same stand closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitions are closed when the underlying grievance is resolved by the respondent. (Para 1 , 2) |
W.P(MD)Nos.18841, 17688 and 17689 of 2026
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.13928, 13929, 13088, 13089, 13094 and 13096 of 2026
W.P.(MD).No.18841 of 2026
S.Satheeskumar ... Petitioner
Vs
The Executive Engineer,
Office of the Executive Engineer,
River Conservancy Division,
Contonment,
Trichy. ... Respondent
PRAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to the Impugned Corrigendum No. 07/2026-2027/R.C.DIVISION/Dt 29.06.2026 issued by the respondent and quash the same as illegal in respect of Serial Nos. 2 and 3
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari,
Counsel for the State
W.P.(MD).No.17688 of 2026
S.Satheeskumar ... Petitioner
Vs
The Executive Engineer,
Office of the Executive Engineer,
River Conservancy Division,
Contonment,
Trichy. ... Respondent
PRAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the Tender invited by the respondent vide 1) E-Tender Notice No. 1/2026 - 2027/River Conservancy Division Trichy/Dated 05.06.2026, 2) E-Tender Notice No.02/2026-2027/River Conservancy Division Trichy/Dated 08.06.2026, 3) E-Tender Notice No.03/2026 - 2027/River Conservancy Division Trichy/ dated 12.06.2026, 4) E-Tender Notice No.04/2026 - 2027 /River Conservancy Division Trichy/Dated 15.06.2026 and 5) E-Tender Notice No.05/2026 - 2027/River Conservancy Division Trichy/Dated 16.06.2026 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari,
Counsel for the State
W.P.(MD).No.17689 of 2026
R.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner
Vs
The Executive Engineer,
Office of the Executive Engineer,
River Conservancy Division,
Contonment,
Trichy. ... Respondent
PRAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the Tender invited by the respondent vide 1) E-Tender Notice No. 1/2026 - 2027/River Conservancy Division Trichy/Dated 05.06.2026, 2) E-Tender Notice No.02/2026-2027/River Conservancy Division, Trichy/Dated 08.06.2026, 3) E-Tender Notice No.03/2026 - 2027/River Conservancy Division Trichy/ dated 12.06.2026, 4) E-Tender Notice No.04/2026 - 2027 /River Conservancy Division Trichy/Dated 15.06.2026 and 5) E-Tender Notice No.05/2026 - 2027/River Conservancy Division Trichy/Dated 16.06.2026 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari,
Counsel for the State
ORDER
When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned Corrigendum has been withdrawn and that the petitioners have also been permitted to participate in the tender.
2. In view of the same, nothing survives for further adjudication in these writ petitions and the same stand closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
