Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus as stated therein.) P.Sathasivam, J Considering the limited issue raised, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner claiming to be the elected Ward Councillor of local body in the second respondent Town Panchayat has filed this Writ Petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from confirming the tender proceeding in respect of tender notification in ref.Na.Ka.No.A1/195/2005 dated 15.6.2005 pertaining to the proposed construction of bus terminus on the Daily Market Street, on the way to Madapuram. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition, it is stated that Thirupuvanam Panchayat is situated in the Madurai Rameswaram NH-49 Road. In the second respondent Panchayat, there was no proper bus terminus. Based on the representation of the people of the said Panchayat, the second respondent proposed to construct a bus terminus in March 2005 and funds were earmarked from the funds of the Member of Parliament to Sivaganga District. The location fixed for the said construction was "in front of the market on the way leading to Madapuram" and the cost of the work estimated at Rs.3 lakh. While so, it is stated that the second respondent issued the second tender notification dated 15.6.2005 calling for the construction of bus terminus by earmarking a different area at an increased cost of Rs.7 lakh. The last date for submission and opening of tenders were fixed on 24.6.2005 at 4.30PM. It is further stated that new place ear marked for construction of bus terminus falls within the area banned for construction by the Government of India vide letter No.5907/J2/NH/2005-2 dated 23.5.2005. In such circumstances, according to the petitioner, having no other remedy approached this court by way of the above Writ Petition. 4. While admitting the Writ Petition on 29.6.2005, this Court issued Rule Nisi to the respondents and in WPMP (MD) No.6192 of 2005 granted interim injunction for the confirmation of the tender alone for a period of two weeks and thereafter, the said interim order was extended. Thereafter, the second respondent in the main Writ Petition viz., the Executive Officer, Special Grade Town Panchayat, Thirupuvanam has filed WVMP (MD) No.318 of 2005 for vacation of the said injunction order. Thereafter, the second respondent in the main Writ Petition viz., the Executive Officer, Special Grade Town Panchayat, Thirupuvanam has filed WVMP (MD) No.318 of 2005 for vacation of the said injunction order. One M.Ayothi has filed WPMP (MD) No.6973 of 2005 seeking permission to implead him as the third respondent in the Writ Petition and also filed WPVMP (MD) No.307 of 2005 for vacation of the injunction order granted on 29.6.2005. 5. At the outset, it is brought to our notice that many of the information furnished in the affidavit are factually incorrect. For example, the affidavit proceeds as if that the second respondent is going to construct "bus terminus" whereas the proposal is to construct "bus shelter". Likewise, even the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has fairly admitted that what is stated in paragraph 4 is factually incorrect. Likewise, it is not in dispute that several mistakes have been crept in the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition. 6. Coming to the merits of the claim, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has brought to our notice that the proposed "bus shelter" is not a hindrance to any one and according to him, the distance from N.H.Raod (B.T.Road) is 6.00Meters. In support of his claim, he also produced a site plan duly signed by the Executive Officer, Special Grade Town Panchayat, Thirupuvanam, the second respondent herein. The red mark portion shows the proposed construction of "bus shelter". The verification of the site plan shows that the distance between the proposed "bus shelter" and the N.H.Road (B.T.Road) is beyond 6.00Meters. Though the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has said that the said proposal is contrary to the decision taken by the Central Government except showing a letter, the learned counsel has not placed any specific notification of any of the Department of the Government of India. In such circumstances, in the light of the decision taken by the second respondent Panchayat that the proposed construction of "bus shelter" is going to be benefited for the general public and in fact, the said proposal was mooted based on the representation from the local people and also of the fact that the amount has been allotted from the funds of Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), we are of the view that no Mandamus need be issued as claimed by the petitioner. Further, as rightly pointed out, the petitioner is not challenging the tender notification but seeks only Mandamus to forbear the respondents from confirming the said tender notification. 7. In the light of what is stated above, we find no merit in the claim made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WPMP (MD) Nos.6192, 6973 and WVMP (MD) Nos.307 and 318 of 2005 are closed.