W.A.No.488 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.488 of 2022
K.Gopalakrishnan .. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Union of India
Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government
of Pondicherry
Chief Secretariat
Pondicherry.
2. The Secretary to Government
Transport Department
Government of Puducherry
Puducherry.
3. The Transport Commissioner
Office of the Transport Commissioner
Transport Department
100 Feet Road
Mudaliarpet
Puducherry 605 004.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.488 of 2022
4. The Tender Evaluation Committee
The Chamber of the Transport Commissioner
Transport Department
Mudaliarpet
Puducherry.
5. M/s. PRR Travels
PRR Illam, No.280, N.Block
26th Street, Anna Nagar East
Chennai 102.
6. M/s. Rainbow Travels
No.500, Bharathi Street
Puducherry 605 001.
7. M/s. Sri Gokul Travels
No.62/3, Puthu Mariamman Koil Street
Ellaipillaichavadi
Puducherry 605 005.
8. R.Sundaramurthy .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 01.02.2022 made in W.P.No.20662 of 2021.
For the Appellant : Mr.B.Balavijayan
For the Respondents : Mr.S.Raveekumar
Government Pleader (Puducherry)
for Respondents 1 to 3
Mr.V.Kamala Kumar
for Respondent-6
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.488 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.B.Balavijayan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.S.Raveekumar, learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.V.Kamalakumar, learned counsel for the sixth respondent.
2. The appellant had filed a writ petition against the rejection of the technical bid of the appellant.
3. The e-tender notice was issued for hiring of vehicles for the use of government departments. The appellant had also bid in the said tender process. The technical bid of the appellant is rejected.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court bearing W.P.No.20662 of 2021.
The said writ petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.488 of 2022 pendency of an FIR against the appellant would not be a ground to disqualify the bid of the appellant. Pendency of a criminal case in itself would not be sufficient to imply that the appellant possesses a criminal background. The appellant was never blacklisted. The appellant's financial bid was the lowest. As such, the appellant's financial bid ought to have been directed to be opened.
5. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the matter in its correct perspective. The appellant was never convicted for any offence. The FIR lodged against the appellant was in respect of the agitation organised by the travel operators to show resentment to the road tax during August 2020. However, the offence was registered attracting the provisions of Indian Penal Code, Disaster Management Act and Epidemic Diseases Act. In fact, the appellant was bona fidely agitating with regard to the road tax in a peaceful manner. By no stretch, the said act could be construed as the appellant possessing a criminal background.
Page 4 of 8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.488 of 2022
6. It is not disputed that the tender has already been allotted to the sixth respondent. It appears that FIR was lodged against the appellant under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Disaster Management Act and Epidemic Diseases Act. It is submitted that subsequently, the said FIR is also quashed.
7. We could have considered the contention of the appellant had the appellant challenged the said clause of the tender before participating in the tender process. Once having participated in the tender process, it is not open for the appellant to assail the said term of tender.
8. The matter is of a contractual nature. The principal has to be given some leverage with regard to the terms of the tender. The principal is the best judge of the terms and conditions to be applied.
9. However, as, according to the appellant, FIR has been Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.488 of 2022 quashed now, for further tenders, it cannot be construed that the appellant has a criminal background.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.3523 & 3524 of 2023 are closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
12.09.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.488 of 2022 To
1. The Chief Secretary to Government of Pondicherry Chief Secretariat Pondicherry.
2. The Secretary to Government Transport Department Government of Puducherry Puducherry.
3. The Transport Commissioner Office of the Transport Commissioner Transport Department 100 Feet Road Mudaliarpet Puducherry 605 004.
4. The Tender Evaluation Committee The Chamber of the Transport Commissioner Transport Department Mudaliarpet Puducherry.
Page 7 of 8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.488 of 2022 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(kpl) W.A.No.488 of 2022 12.09.2023 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis