Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.228 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.11.2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA Rev.Aplw.(MD).No.228 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.25050 of 2025 Iyappan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Kanniyakumari District. 2. The Assistant Director (Town Panchayat), Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District. 3. The Executive Officer, Thingal Nagar Town Panchayat, Panchayat Office, Thingal Nagar, Kanniyakumari District. ... Respondents Prayer: Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of CPC to set aside and review the order of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P(MD)No.25891 of 2025 dated 14.10.2025 and allow review petition. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.228 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Ramnath For Respondents : Mrs.S.Jeya Priya Government Advocate ORDER The above review petition has been filed seeking to review the order dated 14.10.2025 passed in W.P(MD)No.28591 of 2025. 2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the review petitioner herein to declare the tender auction conducted by the 3rd respondent pursuant to the tender notice dated 12.09.2025 as illegal and to direct the 3rd respondent to conduct a fresh tender. 3. The main contention of the petitioner in the said writ petition was that the tender notice indicated that the sealed tender would be received by the 3rd respondent or a person authorised by him on 30.09.2025 upto 03.00 P.M. and the tender form would be issued in the 3rd respondent office on 29.09.2025. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.228 of 2025 4. It is the further case that when he had gone to the 3rd respondent office twice to collect the tender forms, the same was not given to him and therefore, he was not able to participate in the tender and therefore he has come forward with the writ petition. 5. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the basis on which the writ petition has been filed viz., that the tender forms were issued only on a single day was totally incorrect in as much as the tender notice would clearly show that the tender forms were being issued up till 29.09.2025. The date of the tender form was 12.09.2025. 6. The petitioner has come forward with the review petition on the interpretation that the form was issued from 12.09.2025 to 29.09.2025 on the basis of a representation of the counsel for the respondent was totally wrong and that therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of record. 7. This Court is unable to accept the above contention since the tender notice dated 12.09.2025 state that the forms would be issued upto 5.00 pm on 29.09.2025 which in the vernacular reads as under:- 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.228 of 2025 “jp';fs;efu; nju;t[ epiy ngU:uhl;rpf;Fl;gl;l gFjpfspy; 2025-2026k; tUl bghJepjpapy; fPH;f;fhZk; gzpfis nkw;bfhs;s K:o Kj;jpiuaplg;g;ll xg;ge;jg;g[s;spfs; 30.09.2025k; njjp khiy 3.00 kzp tiu jp';fs; efu; nju;t[ epiy ngU:uhl;rp bray; mYtyuhy; my;yJ mtuhy; mjpfhug;gLj;jg;gl;ltuhy; bgw;Wf; bfhs;sg;gLk; xg;ge;jg;g[s;spfspy; vy;yh xg;ge;jf;fhuu;fSk; jtwhJ fye;J bfhz;L fPH;f;Fwpg;gplg;gLk; epge;jidfSf;F cl;gl;L xg;ge;jg;g[s;sp bfhLf;f ntz;Lk;/ xg;ge;jg;g[s;spf;fhd eK:dh gotk; cupa fl;lzj;ij ngU:uhl;rpapy; brYj;jp 29.09.2025 njjp Kw;gfy; 5.00 kzp tiu bgw;Wf;bfhs;syhk;/ tug;bgw;w xg;ge;jg;g[s;spfs; 30.09.2025k;njjp gpw;gfy; 3.30 kzpf;F M$uhapUf;Fk; xg;ge;jf;fhuu;fs; Kd;dpiyapy; bray; mYtyuhy; my;yJ mtuJ mjpfhuk; bgw;wtuhy; jpwf;fg;gLk;” 8. This statement is once again reiterated in the condition no.1 as follows:- “xg;ge;jg;g[s;sp ntz;Lnthu; 29.09.2025 md;W khiy 5.00 kzp tiu eK:dh fl;lzk; brYj;jp xg;ge;jg;g[s;sp bgw;Wf; bfhs;syhk;/” 9. The fact that the language used is “29.09.2025 md;W khiy 5.00 kzp tiu” clearly indicates that the tender notification was being issued up to the said date and the start date would naturally be the date of 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.228 of 2025 the tender notice viz., 12.09.2025. There is no error apparent in the face of the record and therefore, the review filed cannot be sustained. If aggrieved, the review petitioner shall challenge only the order passed by this Court dated 14.10.2025 passed in W.P(MD)No.28591 of 2025. 10. With the above observations, the review petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 11.11.2025 NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm To 1. The District Collector, Kanniyakumari District. 2. The Assistant Director (Town Panchayat), Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District. 3. The Executive Officer, Thingal Nagar Town Panchayat, Panchayat Office, Thingal Nagar, Kanniyakumari District. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.228 of 2025 P.T.ASHA, J. rgm Rev.Aplw.(MD).No.228 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.25050 of 2025 11.11.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis