AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ
The above writ petition has been filed contending that the 5th respondent has floated an NIT without prior approval, as is mandated in Annexure-P/7 communication, issued by the Urban Development and Housing Department. It is also submitted that as per the NIT, three outsourcing agencies were granted the work, to whom payments have been made, even when the terms and conditions of the agreement have not been complied with.
We have to immediately notice that the three outsourcing agencies, to whom work has been awarded, have not been made parties. Hence, there is no question of consideration of whether the disbursement of money is in accordance with the agreement or not.
Yet another contention was that the NIT itself was without prior approval of the department. The concerned department is said to have issued Annexure-P/2 letter, to which the 5th respondent has replied by Annexure-P/3.
It is for the authority to consider whether the explanation is proper or not and there is no question of a Public Interest Litigation being initiated for the same.
For all the above reasons, we find the writ petition to be misconceived. The writ petition stands dismissed.