A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan refused to interfere with the order of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board allowing a TV Cable service provider to provide television cable connection to officials of the government in their Housing Unit and held that it would have been rather sensible to deny the connection as the staff would have been more at peace without viewing these channels.
Brief Facts:
W.P. No. 659 of 2022 had been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to the proceedings of the fourth respondent/the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore and to quash the order dated 22.12.2021 and consequently, direct the said fourth respondent to permit the petitioner to deposit the annual fee for 1848 tenements in Koundampallayam Government Officials Housing Unit on the basis of an earlier order dated 21.10.2019. W.P. No. 633 of 2022 had been filed again in the nature of certiorari filed Mandamus again relating to the very same proceedings No. SPD-3/PLG/55/2019 and to quash the same and also consequently again direct the fourth respondent to permit the petitioner to deposit the annual fee for 1848 tenements in Goundampallayam Government Officials Housing Unit on the basis of an earlier order dated 21.10.2019.
The only semblance of a difference between W.P. Nos. 633 of 2022 and 659 of 2022 is that in W.P. No. 659 of 2022 the petitioner has also impleaded as fifth respondent Mr. V. Prakash, Lakshmi Cable, Coimbatore. The whole matter revolved around the suitability and eligibility of the petitioner to claim as a preference, the permission to provide television cable to 1848 tenements at an officers’ complex.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents were insistent that proper procedure had been followed and that the petitioner had not given or extended the performance guarantee. It was stated that it was well within the rights of the respondents not to give permission to the petitioner herein. With respect to the letter dated 21.10.2019, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that it was conditional subject to satisfaction of the pre-conditions imposed and it was therefore argued that since the petitioner had also not provided the indemnity bond, the petitioner cannot be considered for grant of the permission.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that there was a condition that the petitioner should provide Bank Guarantee; a Bank Guarantee speaks for itself. Since it is an agreement extended by a party to a contract to ensure that he performs the covenants of the said contract, it comes into effect only when the contract comes into effect. Further, when there is no contract, there is no necessity to present a performance guarantee. In fact, there is nothing to be performed. Even if produced, it is just a piece of paper. It has to be simultaneously produced along with a contract.
However, there was a condition laid that the petitioner should provide a performance guarantee in advance. If it is to be done, then on the date when the contract is to be entered into, the respondent should have a performance guarantee in their hands. There should be an assurance extended that if the petitioner fails to provide television cable connections to all the 1848 tenements or there are complaints about the quality of service rendered, then the respondents would be able to enforce the performance guarantee as against the petitioner herein.
The performance guarantee expired in May 2021. As and from May 2021, the respondents would not have any hold over the petitioner herein. There was no contract between the two parties. There was no privity of contract between the two parties. It was open to the respondents to appoint any cable operator.
The Court was of the opinion that it cannot thrust a contract on the respondents and it cannot also sit as an appellate authority over a decision taken. It is an issue of subjecting satisfaction of the respondents herein.
The decision of the Court:
The court was unable to provide any relief to the petitioners and consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Case Title: M/s. Star Channel vs The Secretary to the Government and others
Coram: JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
Case No.: W.P. Nos. 663 & 659 of 2022 And W.M.P. Nos. 714, 715 & 711 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. R. Sivakumar, Mr. V. Arun
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. R. Bharath Kumar, Mr. R. Balasubramanian
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
