R. S. BHARATHY Vs. TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS
LAWS(MAD)-1995-8-101
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on August 08,1995

R. S. BHARATHY Appellant
VERSUS
TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Raju, J. - (1.) The above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 15-10-1993, in W. P. No. 10280 of 1993. Where under the learned judge has chosen to dismiss the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from purchasing 11,000/- tonnes of ACSR Conductors without inviting tender and considering the quotations from all the SSI Units manufacturing such conductors.
(2.) The appellant is a practising Advocate and a former Chairman of the Alandur Municipality. He has come with the writ petition styling it as a public interest litigation with an allegation that nearly 100 crores scandal is going on with the knowledge of the Government and under the direction of the higher-ups and that therefore the appellant was obliged to file the writ petition to safeguard public interest and public revenue. The sum and substance of the contentions in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the respondents have intentionally violated G. O. Ms. No. 1820, Industries, dated 19-12-1979 governing the purchase of requirements in Government departments and Boards, Corporations, Local Bodies and Co-operative Societies, particularly relating to the purchase from Small Scale Industries, that the respondents have also violated the directions contained in the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in 1992 Writ LR 429 (Danya Electric Company v. The State-of Tamil Nadu) , and that the respondents have not taken any care about the price and supply of conductors and the legitimate grievances of local SSI Units. It was also submitted therein that on account of such capricious and whimsical action, great loss to public revenue is being caused.
(3.) The first respondent Electricity Board has filed a counter-affidavit. The Second Respondent has also filed its counter affidavit, disputing and denying the various claims and allegations made by the appellant in his affidavit. It was contended for the respondents that subsequent to G. O. Ms. No. 1820, Industries, dated 19-12-1979, the Government of Tamil Nadu has passed G. O. Ms. No. 330, Finance (BPE) dated 3-5-1991 fixing institutional priority for purchase of stores required by Government departments and organisations, and that therefore the procedure that was being followed in respect of the purchases in question did not suffer any infirmity as alleged and that the entire litigation at the instance of the appellant is politically motivated and there was no substance or merit in the same.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.