M. V. Muralidaran, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide., Letter No.7495/A1/2016-3 dated 13.10.2016 and seeking a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to take appropriate action as against the 4th respondent. With the consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is a transport contractor and he has executed several contracts for the 2nd respondent. He filed a petition before the 2nd respondent on 23.04.2014, for taking action against an errant contractor, the 4th respondent, registered with Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation In order to secure the contract in 2009-10, the 4th respondent has manipulated the RC Book of a lorry bearing No.TDC 7111, which was already scraped, condemned and sold out to the old iron shop, which was not in existence at that point of time. The 4th respondent has affixed the seal of RTO's office and created forged entries to that effect. Originally fitness certificate were not issued to that lorry by the RTO after 25.09.2006, the same was confirmed by RTO in his letter no.E1/28461/09 dated 25.06.2009.
(3.) On detection of the aforesaid facts, the 4th respondent's tender was rejected but without taking any legal action against him. Whereas contractors of other areas for similar fraud were punished severally and were also placed in blacklist for submission of bogus & forged documents for securing contract. This fact was being brought to the notice of higher officials in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation again & again. However the fourth respondent has participated in the Tender for the year 2013-2014 but he was not recommended by RM, Tirunelveli. Yet surprisingly the Managing Director has passed an order dated 08.07.2013, wherein the 4th respondent was also appointed as a transport contractor for the year of 2013-2014 for the Tirunelveli Region in spite of the negative report given by the Regional Manager. Hence the petitioner challenged the order dated 08.07.2013 before this court in W.P.No 13324 of 2013. The Court was pleased to allow the writ petition. Aggrieved over the same 4th respondent preferred a writ appeal in W.A no.1280 of 2013. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this court after hearing elaborate arguments of both sides dismissed the writ appeal and thereby confirmed the single Judge's order in W.P.No.13324 of 2013. Whereupon the petitioner again sent a detailed representation to the authorities to take appropriate action for the fraudulent act of the 4th respondent. However since the representation sent by the petitioner was kept pending the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 11354/2014, Seeking a direction to dispose of her representation. This Court allowed the writ petition and issued a direction to Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation to consider and dispose of the representation of the petition.;