Judgment :- 1. The petitioner states that he is a Class – I Registered Contractor. The petitioner has been executing various project works allotted by the Government of Tamil Nadu from its various Departments for more than 15 years. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued notification dated 28.10.2009 calling for tenders from Class - I contractors to award the work for construction of Fish Landing Centres at Periyamangodu in Thiruvallur District. 2. In response to the said notification, the petitioner submitted his tender application to the second respondent. According to the petitioner, the process of selection involves two stages, namely, qualification tender and price tender. The petitioner was fully qualified in the qualification tender and hence he was allowed to participate in the price tender. In the price tender, his tender was accepted. After negotiation, the tender value was fixed at Rs. 4,27,01,055/- 3. While so, a First Information Report was registered against the petitioner relating to a work in reconstruction of vulnerable houses of Tsunami affected in Tirunelveli District Package No.1 and Package No. 2. The contract was awarded to him in the said scheme. While awarding contract in the said scheme, the petitioner was asked to furnish two bank guarantees, each to the value of Rs.9.60 Lakhs and Rs. 9.72 Lakhs. Now, a criminal complaint by the Department, against the petitioner, has been lodged stating that he produced forged bank guarantees. Now the matter is pending investigation by the CBCID. The petitioner also filed Crl. O.P. No. 5502 of 2009 seeking Anticipatory bail before the Madurai Bench of this Court. The Madurai Bench of this Court was pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail by an order dated 05.08.2009. 4. In these circumstances, the second respondent served a communication dated 29.01.2010 stating that on 21.01.2010, the first respondent – Tender Award Committee technically accepted the negotiated tender of the petitioner for the value of Rs. 4,27,01,055. It is also stated that since a police case is pending against him in Crime No. 42 of 2009, the Tender Award Committee gave time for clearing the case by 15.03.2010 for further review to issue final acceptance order. The petitioner was directed to clear the criminal case on or before 15.03.2010 for issuance of final acceptance order. 5. According to the petitioner, he was not able to get cleared from the criminal case before the time set by the first respondent. The petitioner was directed to clear the criminal case on or before 15.03.2010 for issuance of final acceptance order. 5. According to the petitioner, he was not able to get cleared from the criminal case before the time set by the first respondent. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 16.02.2010 to the second respondent requesting to issue him the work order without reference to the pendency of the criminal case. 6. Since no order was passed, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to issue Work Order for the construction of Fish Landing Centre in Periyamangodu in his favour in pursuance of the acceptance of his tender in the order dated 29.01.2010 of the second respondent, without insisting any clearance in the case in Crime No.42 of 2009 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Town Police Station. 7. Notice of motion was ordered on 06.04.2010. While ordering notice of motion, status-quo as on date was also ordered. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. 8. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no bar in the tender condition for issuing final acceptance order, even if a criminal case is pending against the tendered. He also relies on the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and also the Rules framed thereunder. According to him, there is no prohibition in the said Act and the Rules for awarding the tender, if a criminal case is pending against a person. As the Tender Award Committee accepted the tender of the petitioner, there is no reason for the respondents 1 and 2 to withhold the work by not issuing the work order. 10. On the other hand, Mrs. Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for respondents contends that serious criminal charges are pending against the petitioner. She has taken me through the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the order dated 29.01.2010 of the second respondent was not final acceptance order. The order dated 29.01.2010 of the second respondent is just communicating the decision of the first respondent dated 21.01.2010. She has taken me through the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the order dated 29.01.2010 of the second respondent was not final acceptance order. The order dated 29.01.2010 of the second respondent is just communicating the decision of the first respondent dated 21.01.2010. According to the respondents, the order itself makes it clear that the final acceptance order would be issued after the petitioner gets clearance from the criminal case, which was registered against him in Crime No. 42 of 2009, referred to above. The criminal case was relating to Tsunami projects. The allegations were that the petitioner had produced two bogus Bank Guarantees, each to the value of Rs. 9.60 Lakhs and Rs. 9.72 Lakhs. Though time was given to the petitioner for the clearance of the criminal case before 15.03.2010, he was not able to get clearance from the criminal case. It is stated that thereafter they took advice from the learned Government Advocate and the learned Government Advocate gave opinion not to award contract, as serious criminal case is pending against the petitioner. In these circumstances, the issuance of the work order could not arise as no final acceptance order was issued. 11. The order dated 29.01.2010 of the second respondent is communicating the decision taken by the Tender Award Committee on 21.01.2010. On 21.01.2010, the Tender Award Committee technically accepted the tender and fixed the value. Further it is made clear that it was not final acceptance of tender. A condition was imposed that since the criminal case is pending against the petitioner, final acceptance order would be passed after 15.03.2010, if the petitioner gets cleared from the criminal case before 15.03.2010. Hence it cannot be said that the tender was finally accepted by the first respondent - Tender Award Committee. 12. As stated in the counter affidavit, the Government of India, sanctioned Rs.50 Crores for construction of 10 Fish Landing Centres at various coastal villages under Tsunami Rehabilitation Scheme. Based on the amount sanctioned by the Central Government, the Tamilnadu Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 577, Revenue (NCIV-3) Department, dated 30.09.2008, to construct Fish Landing Centres at 10 places and one among them is Periyamangodu in Tiruvallur District. The project cost was estimated at Rs. 472.39 Lakhs. Based on the amount sanctioned by the Central Government, the Tamilnadu Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 577, Revenue (NCIV-3) Department, dated 30.09.2008, to construct Fish Landing Centres at 10 places and one among them is Periyamangodu in Tiruvallur District. The project cost was estimated at Rs. 472.39 Lakhs. Thereafter, tenders were called for in the letter dated 25.09.2009 of the second respondent fixing the last date for receipt of tenders as 28.10.2009. Only two tenders were received for the construction work at Periyamangodu in Tiruvallur District. The another tendered was not qualified. In these circumstances, the second respondent technically accepted the tender to the negotiated value of Rs. 4,27,01,055/-, with a condition that final acceptance order for awarding the tender would be issued after the petitioner gets clearance from the criminal case in Crime No. 42 of 2009 by 15.03.2010. The petitioner is not able to get clearance from the criminal case. In these circumstances, the first respondent has to take decision on the construction of Fish Landing Centre at Periyamangodu in Tiruvallur District as expeditiously as possible. 13. As already stated, the Central Government has directed to construct 10 Fish Landing Centers to the estimated cost of Rs. 50.00 Crores in the year 2006. In September 2008, the Tamilnadu Government issued an order approving the total amount of Rs. 49.97 Crores for construction of Fish Landing Centers at 10 places. Tenders were called on September 2009. The last date for receipt of tender was on 28.10.2009. Now about 4 years have lapsed after the Central Government announced the scheme. Under such circumstances, the first respondent has to take decision about the construction of Fish Landing Centre in Periyamangodu at Thiruvallur District at the earliest point of time. They cannot keep the work pending for indefinite period. But at the same time, the petitioner is not correct in stating as if final acceptance order was issued by the first respondent on 21.01.2010. It is not so. It is made clear that final acceptance order would be issued only if the petitioner gets clearance from the criminal case before 15.03.2010 and the petitioner cannot seek for issuance of work order. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.