Madras High Court
P. Ravishankar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2021
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Writ Petition Nos. 13481 and 13488 of 2021
and
WMP. Nos. 14354, 14355 and 14356 of 2021
---
P. Ravishankar
Civil Contractor (Reg.No.25/2011-12)
1/3, Chinnapollapatti Village
Kottumaranahalli Post
Periyampatti
Palacode Taluk
Dharmapuri District - 635 205 .. Petitioner in
both the writ petitions
Versus
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Highways Department
rep. by its Superintending Engineer (Highways)
NABARD and Rural Roads Circle
Salem - 1
2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)
Quality Control Division
Salem - 7
3. The Deputy Director (Highways)
Office of the Divisional Engineer (Highways)
Quality Control Division
Salem – 7 .. Respondents 1 to 3
in both the writ petitions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
4. Mr. P. Baskar
Contractor
No.39/1, First Cross Street
Nedumaran Nagar
Dharmapuri - 636 701
5. M/s. Sasi Road Finishers and Engineering Contractors
No.41/2, First Cross Street
Nedumaran Nagar
Dharmapuri - 636 701 .. Respondents 4 & 5
in WP. No. 13481 of 2021
4. Mr. D.S. Akbal
Contractor
No.3/1407, New Colony
Behind R.S. Mosque
Kumarasamypettai
Dharmapuri - 636 703
5. M/s. DSA Construction
No.3/1407, New Colony
Behind R.S. Mosque
Kumarasamypettai
Dharmapuri - 636 703 .. Respondents 4 & 5
in WP. No. 13488 of 2021
WP No. 13481 of 2021:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records of the impugned Tender Summary Report dated
23.06.2021 bearing Tender ID 2021_HWAY_199023_1 relating to the works
under Dharmapuri Package No.59 issued by the first respondent and quashing
the same as illegal and consequently directing the first respondent to call for
fresh tenders in respect of the works relating to the Dharmapuri Package No.59
by complying with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency
Act, 1998 and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
WP No. 13488 of 2021:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records of the impugned Tender Summary Report dated
23.06.2021 bearing Tender ID 2021_HWAY_199030_1 relating to the works
under Dharmapuri Package No.60 issued by the first respondent and quashing
the same as illegal and consequently directing the first respondent to call for
fresh tenders in respect of the works relating to the Dharmapuri Package No.60
by complying with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency
Act, 1998 and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000.
For Petitioner : Mr. Sricharan Rengarajan
for Mr. K. Gowtham Kumar
in both the Writ Petitions
For Respondents : Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu
Government Counsel for RR1 to 3
in both the Writ Petitions
No representation for R4 in WP No.13481/2021
Mr. N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel
for Mr. C. Munusamy for R5
in WP No. 13481 of 2021
Mr. T.A. Srinivasen for R4 and R5
in WP No. 14388 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
In both these writ petitions, the petitioner challenges the validity and
legality of the Tender Summary Reports dated 23.06.2021 relating to the
works under Dharmapuri Package Nos.59 and 60 respectively issued by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
first respondent. He also seeks a consequential direction to the first respondent
to call for fresh tenders in respect of the said works in compliance with the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (for brevity,
'the Act') and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 (for
brevity, 'the Rules').
2. The petitioner claims himself to be a Taluk Level Class I Civil
Contractor registered with the Highways Department in Dharmapuri District
for the works above the value of Rs.75 lakhs and he possesses the experience
of over 10 years in the field of civil construction contracts, including
Government contracts.
3. According to the petitioner, the first respondent issued Tender
Notice No.27/2020-2021/SDO dated 22.02.2021 inviting percentage bids
under two cover system through on-line for the works viz., Package No.59
(upgradation of Panchayat and Panchayat Union Roads (5 works), Package
No.60 (upgradation of Panchayat and Panchayat Union Roads (5 works) and
Upgradation of Panaiyur to Neithalur Natchalur Road Km 0/3-3/3. As per the
said tender notification, the last date for submission of bids was indicated as
29.03.2021 at 11.00hours. Subsequently, the election to the Sixteenth Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
Nadu State Legislative Assembly, 2021 was announced by the State Election
Commission on 26.02.2021, as a result of which, the Model Code of Conduct
(MCC) came into force on the same day i.e., 26.02.2021. Pursuant to the same
and also due to the surge in Covid-19 cases in the State of Tamil Nadu, the
date for submission of the bids and the date for opening the same were
postponed by issuing Corrigendum 1 to 5 by the first respondent.
4. The petitioner further averred that one of the terms and conditions
of the said tender notice is that the contractor should produce the documents
for possession of sufficient plants and machineries on his own and obtain
certificate from the competent authorities, after inspecting the working
condition of the same, so as to complete the work in time with quality. Though
the petitioner approached the authority concerned for getting quality
certificate, the same was delayed by citing the declaration of general election.
Immediately after the declaration of results for the Assembly election, he sent
a letter dated 07.05.2021 requesting for issuance of quality certificate to the
authority concerned by speed post, which was delivered to the second
respondent only on 07.06.2021, but there was no response from the authority
concerned. Hence, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 11.06.2021 to the
Assistant Director (H), Quality Control Division, Salem -7, making the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
request of issuance of a quality certificate, after inspection of the plants and
machineries made available in his business premises. However, he was not
issued with necessary certificate by the second respondent.
5. It is also stated in the writ petition that in the mean while, the first
respondent issued Corrigendum-6 dated 14.06.2021, indicating the last date
for submission of bids as 22.06.2021 and opening the same on 23.06.2021
through online, which according to the petitioner, is in clear violation of Rule
20 of the Rules, as minimum time of 30 days for submission of bids from the
date of notification, was not provided. Further, the approximate value of
contract for the works under Package No.59 is Rs.674.45 lakhs and under
Package No.60 is Rs.587.20 lakhs and hence, the notice inviting tender should
be published in an English newspaper in the All India Edition, besides in the
Tamil daily having wide circulation in the State, so as to enable all the eligible
bidders to participate in the bids, as per Rule 11(2) of the Rules, but the tender
notification was published only in New Indian Express and Dinamalar on
25.02.2021.
6. The petitioner further stated that in view of the inaction on the
part of the second respondent, he again sent a letter on 17.06.2021 expressing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
his intention to participate in the bids for the works under package Nos.59 and
60 and requesting the second respondent to issue quality certificate, after
inspecting his plants and machineries, but no action was taken on the said
communication. Finding no option, the petitioner has submitted the bids
without quality certificate. Consequently, the first respondent by tender
summary reports dated 23.06.2021, rejected the petitioner's technical bids and
thereby declared him as disqualified bidder. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner
has filed the present writ petitions.
7. Denying the allegations raised in the writ petitions, two separate
counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents 1 to 3. The common
averments made therein are as follows:
(i)Due to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election, the MCC came
into force with effect from 26.02.2021 and as per the 1st Corrigendum and 2nd
Corrigendum, the date of opening the bids was postponed to 28.04.2021 and
12.05.2021 respectively; and due to covid-19 pandemic, 3,4,5 and 6th
Corrigendum came to be issued postponing the bids opening date to
20.05.2021, 04.06.2021, 16.06.2021 and 23.06.2021 respectively.
(ii)The tender notification was published in the state tender bulletin as
well as the newspapers viz., New Indian Express and Dinamalar on 25.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
mentioning the last date for submission of bids as 29.03.2021; in Sl.No.9 of
the notes in the notice inviting tender, it was specifically stated that
Corrigendum if any will be available only in the website; and hence, there is
no violation of Rule 11(2) of the Rules.
(iii) The time gap between the date of issuance of tender notification in
the state tender bulletin and the date of opening the bids is 117 days and
instead of minimum 30 days, sufficient time was provided to the bidders
enabling them to submit the required documents and hence, the mandatory
requirement of Rule 20 has been complied with by the first respondent.
(iv)On 16.05.2021 onwards, the Tamil Nadu Government imposed lock
down and the regular work was resumed only on 07.06.2021 onwards with
30% staff attendance and hence, the petitioner's application dated 07.05.2021
requesting to issue plant working certificate received by the second respondent
on 07.06.2021 was not considered; his another request dated 11.06.2021
received on 14.06.2021 was addressed only to the Assistant Director (H),
Quality Control Division, Salem and not to the second respondent; and due to
other official works outside the jurisdiction, the petitioner's further
communication dated 17.06.2021 seeking quality certificate, was seen by the
second respondent just one day before the date of opening the bids i.e., on
22.06.2021 and therefore, he was not issued with any quality certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
(v)It is mandate that the contractor should produce the documents for
his own possession of plants and machineries and obtain plant working
certificate from the competent authority. Except the petitioner, all the other
private respondents approached the second respondent and obtained the said
certificate in time.
(vi)The tender was awarded for the lowest tenderer at the estimated rate
and the work was commenced for the benefit of the public and hence, the
question of levying huge burden on the public exchequer does not arise.
Thus, according to the respondent authorities, since the petitioner did
not submit the plant working certificate, his technical bids were rejected and
he was declared as disqualified bidder and hence, the tender process was done
in accordance with the Act and the Rules and the same warrants no
interference by this court.
8. Upon notice, the fifth respondent in WP.No.13481 of 2021 filed a
detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that they are the
registered class I contractor and have completed various projects within the
time stipulated by the authorities concerned with high quality of work;
pursuant to the notification dated 22.02.2021 issued by the first respondent,
the fifth respondent submitted its bids and the authorities have opened the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
technical bids on 23.06.2021, in which this respondent was one among the
qualified bidders; subsequently, price bids were opened and after thorough
scrutiny and verification of records, this respondent was declared as successful
bidder and was awarded with contract by work order dated 25.06.2021. The
counter affidavit further proceeds to state that the respondents 4 and 5 are
separate and independent entities; there is no bar under the law in members of
the family conducting the businesses separately and independently; the tender
condition also did not prohibit any firm or legal entity related to each other, to
participate in the tender process; and therefore, the allegation of malafide or
whatsoever is unfounded and the same is concocted by the petitioner for his
personal undue gain and illegal enrichment so as to stall the entire tender
process, thereby causing huge loss to the Government exchequer and
inconvenience to the general public at large. This respondent also stated
therein that as per the tender condition, the petitioner should have produced
the plant working certificate obtained from the second respondent, but he
failed to do so, due to which, his technical bids were rejected; and hence, there
is no arbitrariness or malafide on the part of the respondent authorities in
awarding contract to this respondent, which has duly complied with all the
terms and conditions of the tender notification. Thus, according to this
respondent, the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
interference of this court to the tender process by invoking Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
9. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent in
WP.No.13488 of 2021 that their Unit viz., DSA constructions is comprised of
three members viz., A.Masood and his brother and mother and the joint
registration certificate was duly issued on 23.05.2012 bearing No.77 and it is a
separate entity having different assessment; the fourth respondent / D.S.Akbal,
who is the father of A.Masood, is carrying on his business in his personal
name and he has no connection with the fifth respondent; however, the
petitioner having failed to comply with the conditions set out in the tender
notification, has preferred this writ petition impleading the fourth respondent,
for the purpose of meddling with the issue. Stating so, this respondent sought
to dismiss this writ petition.
10.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a Taluk Level Class I Civil contractor and he successfully
completed various Government contracts for the past five years. Adding
further, the learned counsel submitted that immediately after issuance of the
notice inviting tender, the petitioner made several oral requests before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
second respondent to inspect his plants and machineries and issue quality
certificate for participating in the bids for the works under package Nos.59 and
60. However, the said requests were not acceded to by the second respondent
stating that the MCC came into force on 26.02.2021. Immediately after
declaration of the election result, on 07.05.2021, the petitioner sent a letter to
the second respondent through speed post, requesting to issue quality
certificate, which was received by the second respondent only on 07.06.2021,
but the same was not considered. The petitioner again sent letters dated
11.06.2021 and 17.06.2021, reiterating the same request. Even thereafter, he
was not issued with plant working certificate, which compelled the petitioner
to submit the bids on 22.06.2021 without enclosing the said certificate.
Resultantly, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's technical bids for both
the packages on 23.06.2021 and declared him as disqualified bidder. Thus,
according to the learned counsel, there is no delay or lapses on the part of the
petitioner in approaching the respondent authorities for getting plant working
certificate / quality certificate, whereas the second respondent has acted in
malafide with an intention to deprive the petitioner from participating in the
tender process.
10.2 The learned counsel further submitted that though the
notice inviting tender was published on 22.02.2021, the Model Code of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
Conduct commenced on 26.02.2021 and concluded on 07.05.2021 and the
state wide lockdown was imposed from 10.05.2021 to 07.06.2021. Therefore,
excluding the time under the Model Code of Conduct and covid 19 lock down,
only 19 days time was provided between the notice inviting tender and the last
date for submission of bids. Even the time gap between the publication of
corrigendum 6 dated 14.06.2021 and the last date for submission of bids
indicating as 22.06.2021 is only 8 days. Therefore, the minimum time of 30
days between the Notice Inviting Tender and the submission of bids was not
provided to the bidders, which is contrary to Rule 20 of the Rules. In support
of the same, the learned counsel placed reliance on the orders of this court in
(i)Sri Venkatram Spinners Pvt. Ltd and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and
others [MANU/TN/2421/2017] and (ii)R.Kanagasabapathy v. the
Commissioner, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation and others
[MANU/TN/6156/2020].
10.3 It is also contended that neither the notice inviting tender nor
the corrigendum 6 was published in accordance with Rule 11(2) read with
annexure to the Rules. According to the learned counsel, the value of the
subject works is more than Rs.5 crores, however, the notice inviting tender
was not published in an English newspaper circulated in All India Edition, but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
was published in the New Indian Express having circulation only in South
India and that, the corrigendum 6 revising the date for submission of bids was
not published in any newspaper and hence, the same is in violation of Rule
11(2) of the Rules, which vitiates the entire tender process. In this context, the
learned counsel referred to the order of this court in Appu Food products v.
Akram and others, [2019 SCC Online Mad 12378].
10.4 The learned counsel further submitted that as per the
impugned tender summary reports of the first respondent, four bidders
participated in the bids for the works under package Nos.59 and 60, among
which, the technical bids of the fourth and fifth respondents have been
accepted. The fifth respondent in WP.No.13481 of 2021 is a partnership firm
whose partners are the wife and son of the fourth respondent. Similarly, the
fifth respondent in WP.No.13488 of 2021 is a firm whose Managing Director
is the son of the fourth respondent. According to the learned counsel, it is the
bounden duty of the first respondent to ensure that there is no nexus between
the parties as the same may lead to exercise influence over each other and gain
access to the information, besides eliminating the competition in the bidding
process. In the case at hand, the respondents 4 and 5 who were declared as
qualified bidders in the technical bids opened on 23.06.2021, are related to
each other, which undoubtedly affects the principle of fairness. To substantiate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
his submission, the learned counsel relied on the decisions of this court in
(i)Kumbhat Holographics v. Government of Tamil Nadu [2021 SCC
Online Mad 1724 : (2021) 4 Mad LJ 225](DB) and (ii)Travel News
Services (India) Private Limited v. Airports Authority of India
[MANU/TN/2423/2017].
With these submissions, the learned counsel ultimately prayed to set
aside the tender summary reports relating to the works under package nos. 59
and 60 which are impugned in these writ petitions and consequently, direct the
respondents to call for fresh tenders for the same.
11. Per contra, the learned Government Counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3 submitted that as a tender inviting authority, the respondent
authorities are at free to impose any condition for the purpose of executing and
implementing the contract. Accordingly, the notice inviting tender mandates a
condition that the contractor should produce the documents for own
possession of sufficient plants and machineries and obtain certificate from
competent authorities for working condition of such plants and machineries to
complete the work in time with quality. Adding further, the learned
Government Counsel submitted that though the petitioner claimed that he has
already approached the second respondent in person and thereafter, through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
written communications, for issuance of plant working certificate, he applied
for such certificate only on 17.06.2021, which was received by the second
respondent on 21.06.2021. Since the second respondent / Divisional Engineer
(H), Quality Control Division, Salem, was not available in his office from
15.06.2021 to 23.06.2021 and was on duty at Highways Research Station,
Chennai and from there he proceeded to Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi for
inspection; and since there was only two working days left for causing an
inspection and issuing quality certificate, the petitioner was not issued with
such certificate. On the other hand, the other private respondents have
submitted their applications well in advance and hence, they were issued with
quality certificate, before the date of submission of bids. Thus, according to
the learned Government counsel, the petitioner was not issued with quality
certificate only due to the fault on his part. It is also submitted that since the
tender condition specifically mandates the bidder to get the plant working
certificate from the competent authorities and the petitioner did not fulfil the
said condition, his technical bids were rejected. Hence, the tender process was
done in accordance with the Act and Rules and there was no undue haste in
awarding contract in favour of any particular tenderer. Stating so, the learned
Government Counsel prayed that the tender summary reports which are
impugned herein, need not be interfered with by this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
12.1 The learned Senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent in
WP No. 13481 of 2021 submitted that the fifth respondent is a registered class
I contractor and has completed several projects for the Highways Department
and other Government departments with high quality, within the time frame.
Adding further, the learned senior counsel submitted that the notice inviting
tender was originally published on 22.02.2021 indicating the date of
submission of bids as 29.03.2021, which was subsequently extended from time
to time due to the existence of MCC on account of state legislative assembly
election and the lock down imposed by the State Government to arrest the
spread of Covid-19 pandemic. Ultimately, the last date for submission of bids
was fixed on 22.06.2021 and the date for opening the same was on 23.06.2021.
Accordingly, the authorities opened the technical bids on 23.06.2021 and the
fifth respondent was declared as one among the qualified bidder.
Subsequently, they were awarded with the contract by work order dated
25.06.2021.
12.2 It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that the notice
inviting tender was widely published in newspapers as stipulated under Rule
11 of the Rules and the respondent authorities have scrupulously followed the
procedure with due diligence and care. Adding further, the learned senior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
counsel submitted that the tender inviting authority has published the tender
notification on 22.02.2021 giving time limit till 29.03.2021 giving 36 days for
submission of tenders which is more than the stipulated period. Besides that,
the said time was extended from time to time as long as five months enabling
more bidders to participate in the tender. Ultimately, the last date for
submission of bids was fixed on 22.06.2021 giving four months time.
Therefore, sufficient time was granted more than the stipulated time as
contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules. Despite the same, the petitioner
could not produce the required documents to become eligible in the technical
bids, which compelled the authorities to reject his bids. However, with an
intent to stall the entire works, the petitioner has made vague and baseless
allegations against the respondents.
12.3 The learned senior counsel also submitted that the citizens of
India are having fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
constitution of India and hence, the members of the family can do the same
business independently by establishing separate business entities. Thus,
according to the learned senior counsel, the relationship between the
respondents 4 and 5, who are doing business independently on their own,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
would not constitute any conflict of interest over the tender process and
therefore, the same cannot be treated as a criterion for disqualification, that
too, in the absence of one such condition in the tender notification.
12.4 It is also submitted that as the fifth respondent has complied with
all the essential requirements as called for by the tender inviting authority, he
was granted the work order on 25.06.2021. Pursuant to the same, the fifth
respondent has started the work. In such circumstances, if the work is stalled
in a midway, it would cause heavy loss to the government exchequer. Besides
that, the public interest will be at peril and the rights and interest of the
successful bidder will also be at stake.
12.5 Above all, placing reliance on the decisions of the supreme court
in (2007) 14 SCC 517 [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others] and
Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others [(2012) 8
SCC 216], the learned senior counsel submitted that the scope of judicial
review in the contractual matters is very limited, unless there is arbitrariness,
irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafides. Thus, questioning the
locus standi of the petitioner, who is the unsuccessful bidder, to file this writ
petition, the learned senior counsel prayed to dismiss the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
13. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 in WP.No.13488
of 2021 submitted that the fifth respondent viz., DSA constructions consists of
its Managing Director by name A.Masood and his brother and mother. The
fourth respondent is the father of said A.Masood and he has no legs to stand
with the fifth respondent entity. The respondents 4 and 5 have no business
relationship among themselves and they are separate and different entities.
Hence, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the tender process, warranting
interference at the hands of this court. In respect of other issues, the learned
counsel has adopted the arguments advanced on the side of the respondents in
WP.No.13481 of 2021.
14. Heard all the parties and perused the materials available on
record.
15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a class I civil contractor
and he carried on various Government projects. Pursuant to the notice inviting
tender dated 22.02.2021 for the works under Package Nos.59 and 60, he
submitted his bids among others. One of the conditions stipulated in the said
tender notification is that the contractor should produce the documents for own
possession of sufficient plants and machineries and obtain certificate from the
competent authorities for working condition of the plants and machineries to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
complete the work in time with quality. Due to State legislative Assembly
election and covid-19 pandemic situation, the date of submission of the bids
and the date of opening the same were postponed by issuing Corrigendum 1 to
5. Ultimately, Corrigendum 6 was issued on 14.06.2021 revising the last date
for submission of bids as 22.06.2021. Though the petitioner approached the
second respondent by making application for issuance of plant working
certificate, he was not issued with such certificate. Therefore, he submitted the
bids without the necessary documents, due to which, his technical bids for the
works under packages 59 and 60 were rejected, on 23.06.2021 and he was
declared as disqualified bidder, by the tender summary reports, which are
impugned in these writ petitions.
16.1 At the outset, this court is inclined to examine the pertinent issue
raised on the side of the fifth respondent in WP.No.13481 of 2021 with respect
to the power of judicial review in the tender / contractual matters. In this
connection, the observations of the supreme court in some of the decisions
may be summarised as follows:
(a)Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651], wherein,
having reviewed the law on award of public contracts, the Supreme Court laid
down the following guiding principles:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
“94. 1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative
action.
2) The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews
the manner in which the decision was made.
3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the
administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is
permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary
expertise which itself may be fallible.
4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial
scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.
Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract
is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often
than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other
words, a fairplay in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an
administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-
administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by
the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its
other facts pointed out above) hut must be free of arbitrariness not
affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden
on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure."
(b)In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. [(2000) 2
SCC 617], the Supreme Court observed as follows:
“7.....The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by
a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In
arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are
commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive
at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not
open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally
deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be
the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation,
for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation.
It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the
lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are
bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by
them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not
amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides,
unreasonableness and arbitrariness."
(c)In Monarch Infrastructure (P) Limited v. Commissioner,
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others [(2000) 5 SCC 287], at para
11, it has been held by the Supreme Court as follows:
“11.Broadly stated, the courts would not interfere with
the matter of administrative action or changes made therein,
unless the Government's action is arbitrary or discriminatory
or the policy adopted has no nexus with the object it seeks to
achieve or is mala fide.”
(d)In Directorate Of Education and Others vs. Educomp
Datamaatics Ltd. & Ors. [(2004) 4 SCC 19], the Supreme Court held thus:
"9. It is well settled now that the courts can scrutinise the award of
the contracts by the Government or its agencies in exercise of their
powers of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. However,
there are inherent limitations in the exercise of the power of judicial
review in such matters. The point as to the extent of judicial review
permissible in contractual matters while inviting bids by issuing tenders
has been examined in depth by this Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of
India; (1994) 6 SCC 651.
(e)In State of U.P and Another. v. Johri Mal [(2004) 4 SCC 714], it
was held by the Supreme Court as follows:
"It is well settled that while exercising the power of judicial
review the court is more concerned with the decision-making process
than the merit of the decision itself. In doing so, it is often argued by the
defender of an impugned decision that the court is not competent to
exercise its power when there are serious disputed questions of facts;
when the decision of the Tribunal or the decision of the fact-finding body
or the arbitrator is given finality by the statute which governs a given
situation or which, by nature of the activity the decision- maker's opinion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
on facts is final. But while examining and scrutinising the decision-
making process it becomes inevitable to also appreciate the facts of a
given case as otherwise the decision cannot be tested under the grounds
of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. How far the court of
judicial review can reappreciate the findings of facts depends on the
ground of judicial review. For example, if a decision is challenged as
irrational, it would be well-nigh impossible to record a finding whether a
decision is rational or irrational without first evaluating the facts of the
case and coming to a plausible conclusion and then testing the decision of
the authority on the touchstone of the tests laid down by the court with
special reference to a given case. This position is well settled in the
Indian administrative law. Therefore, to a limited extent of scrutinising
the decision- making process, it is always open to the court to review the
evaluation of facts by the decision-maker."
(f)In Jespar I. Slong v. State of Meghalaya and others [(2004) 11
SCC 485], the Supreme Court considered grants of Government contracts
awarding rights to collect tolls, weighment charges etc. and held thus:
"19. It goes without saying that the Government while entering
into contracts is expected not to act like a private individual but should act
in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms. Such actions
should not be arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The awarding of contracts
by inviting tenders is considered to be one of the fair methods. If there are
any reservations or restrictions then they should not be arbitrary and must
be justifiable on the basis of some policy or valid principles which by
themselves should be reasonable and not discriminatory. (See para 7 of
Hindustan Development case; (1993) 3 SCC 499). The said judgment also
states that any act which excluded competition from any part of the trade
or commerce by forming cartels should not be permitted."
(g)In Master Marine Services Pvt. Limited v. Metcalfe and
Hodgkinson Pvt. Limited [(2005) 6 SCC 138], wherein, at paragraph 12, it
was held by the Supreme Court that 'the discretionary power under Article 226
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
should be exercised in matters relating to tenders only in furtherance of public
interest and not merely because a legal point was made'.
(h)In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517], it was
held by the Supreme Court as under:
"22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its
purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not
to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial
review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts,
certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a
commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are
essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice
stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide
and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial
review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or
prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not
be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public
interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a
grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by
unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and
business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some
technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade
courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be
resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public
works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and
may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before
interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial
review, should pose to itself the following questions :
i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala
fide or intended to favour someone.
OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and
irrational that the court can say : 'the decision is such that no responsible
authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have
reached.'
ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference
under Article 226."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
(i)In Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka [(2012)
8 SCC 216], it has been observed by the Supreme Court as follows:
“23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:
(a) the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the
State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of
fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the
extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not
whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of
reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the
national priorities;
(b) fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview
of the executive and courts hardly have any role to play in this process
except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be
arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with
certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by
inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by Courts is very
limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document
and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the
State authorities unless the action of tendering authority is found to be
malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by Courts is
not warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be
laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources
to successfully execute the work; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in
public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by Court is
very restrictive since no person can claim fundamental right to carry on
business with the Government.
24. Therefore, a Court before interfering in tender or contractual
matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the
following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority
is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process
adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can
say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably
and in accordance with relevant law could have reached”?; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
(ii) Whether the public interest is affected?.
If the answers to the above questions are in negative, then there
should be no interference under Article 226.
35. As observed earlier, the Court would not normally interfere
with the policy decision and in matters challenging the award of contract
by the State or public authorities. In view of the above, the appellant has
failed to establish that the same was contrary to public interest and
beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonable. We are satisfied that
to have the best of the equipment for the vehicles, which ply on road
carrying passengers, the 2nd respondent thought it fit that the criteria for
applying for tender for procuring tyres should be at a high standard and
thought it fit that only those manufacturers who satisfy the eligibility
criteria should be permitted to participate in the tender. As noted in
various decisions, the Government and their undertakings must have a
free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary,
discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the Courts would interfere.
The Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the
Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would
have been fair, wiser or logical. In the case on hand, we have already
noted that taking into account various aspects including the safety of the
passengers and public interest, the CMG consisting of experienced
persons, revised the tender conditions. We are satisfied that the said
Committee had discussed the subject in detail and for specifying these
two conditions regarding pre-qualification criteria and the evaluation
criteria. On perusal of all the materials, we are satisfied that the impugned
conditions do not, in any way, could be classified as arbitrary,
discriminatory or mala fide.”
(j)In Maa Binda Express Carrier v. North-East Frontier Railway
[(2014) 3 SCC 760], the Supreme Court held thus:
“8. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of
contract by the State and its instrumentalities is settled by a long line of
decisions of this Court. While these decisions clearly recognize that
power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in regard to
allotment of contract is subject to judicial review at the instance of an
aggrieved party, submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting
such tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its
agencies are under no obligation to accept. The bidders participating in
the tender process cannot, therefore, insist that their tenders should be
accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or lowest depending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
upon whether the contract is for sale of public property or for execution of
works on behalf of the Government. All that participating bidders are
entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter
of evaluation of their tenders. It is also fairly well-settled that award of a
contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined
on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial
decision. This implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are
not open to the judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been
tailor made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of tenderers. So also
the authority inviting tenders can enter into negotiations or grant
relaxation for bona fide and cogent reasons provided such relaxation is
permissible under the terms governing the tender process.
9. Suffice it to say that in the matter of award of contracts the
Government and its agencies have to act reasonably and fairly at all points
of time. To that extent the tenderer has an enforceable right in the Court
who is competent to examine whether the aggrieved party has been
treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of public
interest.”
(k)In Central Coal Fields Limited and another Vs. SLL-SML (Joint
Venture Consortium) and others [(2016) 8 SCC 622], it was held as
follows:
“Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances,
wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills
of some technical/ procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and
persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should
be resisted.”
(l)In Municipal Corpn., Ujjain v. BVG India Limited, [(2018) 5 SCC
462], the Supreme Court has held as follows:
64.1 Under the scope of judicial review, the High Court could not
ordinarily interfere with the judgment of the expert consultant on the issues
of technical qualifications of a bidder when the consultant takes into
consideration various factors including the basis of non-performance of the
bidder;
64.3 It is not open to the Court to independently evaluate the
technical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis bids and financial bids of the parties as an appellate authority for
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
coming to its conclusion inasmuch as unless the thresholds of mala fides,
intention to favour someone or bias, arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity
are met, where a decision is taken purely on public interest, the Court
ordinarily should exercise judicial restraint.
Thus, it is lucid from the legal principles as enunciated in the aforesaid
decisions of the supreme court that the Courts can scrutinise the award of the
contracts by the Government or its agencies in exercise of its power of judicial
review to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. Further, the interference in the
contractual matters is permissible, if decision-making process is illegal,
irrational, arbitrary and procedural impropriety and it must meet the test of
reasons and relevance.
16.2 Regarding the contention that the petitioner, who is an
unsuccessful bidder, cannot question the decision of the first respondent, this
court is of the view that he has participated in the tender process, pursuant to
the notice inviting tender and hence, he can very well challenge the tender
process. The supreme court in NHAI v. Gwalior Jhansi Expressway Ltd
[Civil Appeal No.3288 of 2018 dated 13.07.2018], holds that 'the right to
exercise by any contractor would come into play only if he participates in the
tender process pursuant to notice inviting tenders from other interested
parties'. Therefore, the petitioner has locus standi to file the present writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
petitions, to challenge the decision of the first respondent. Accordingly, the
issue relating to maintainability is answered in favour of the petitioner.
17. In these writ petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
advanced three-fold submissions viz., (i)non-issuance of plant working
certificate by the second respondent to the petitioner is with a malafide
intention to deprive the petitioner from participating in the tender process;
(ii)the mandatory provisions of Rules 11 (2) and 20 of the Rules have not been
complied with by the respondent authorities; and (iii)there is conflict of
interest over the tender process, as the respondents 4 and 5, who were declared
as qualified biders in the technical bids, are related to each other.
18.1 As regards the first submission relating to non-issuance of plant
working certificate, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that though the petitioner made several oral requests immediately after
issuance of notice inviting tender i.e. during the month of February 2021 for
inspection of his plants and machineries and issuance of plant working
certificate so as to enable him to participate in the tender process, the same
was not considered due to existence of MCC. Thereafter, the petitioner made
written requests on 07.05.2021, 11.06.2021 and 17.06.2021, which were also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
not considered. Resultantly, his technical bids were rejected and he was
disqualified from the tender process, which according to the learned counsel,
is solely due to the inaction of the second respondent on the petitioner's
application seeking quality certificate.
18.2 On the other hand, it is submitted on the side of the respondent
authorities that the petitioner applied for plant working certificate only on
17.06.2021, which was received by the second respondent on 21.06.2021 just
two days prior to the date of opening the bids. The second respondent,
Divisional Engineer (H), Quality Control Division, Salem, was not available in
the office from 15.06.2021 to 23.06.2021 and was on duty at Highways
Research Station, Chennai and thereafter to Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi
Division Works inspection and hence, he was unable to take action on the
petitioner's said application.
18.3.1 This court considered the rival submissions. Admittedly,
there are three communications sent by the petitioner to the second respondent
seeking plant working certificate / quality certificate viz., 07.05.2021,
11.06.2021 and 17.06.2021. On a careful scrutiny of the documents available
on record, it could be seen that there are contradictory statements made by the
respondent authorities qua receipt of those communications. In respect of the
first letter dated 07.05.2021, in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
stated that the petitioner has applied for the plant working certificate only on
17.06.2021. Whereas in paragraph 31, it was stated that the request for issuing
plant certificate in the letter dated 07.05.2021 was received only on
07.06.2021. Paragraphs 7 and 9 proceed to state that the second respondent
was not available in the office from 15.06.2021 to 23.06.2021 and could not
see any letter. On the other hand, in paragraph 27, it was stated that the letters
were received on 14.06.2021 seen on 23.06.2021 due to other official works
from 14.06.2021 afternoon to 23.06.2021. Regarding the petitioner's second
letter dated 11.06.2021, a vague statement was made in the additional affidavit
filed by the first respondent that the said letter was addressed to the Assistant
Director, Highways, Quality Control, Salem and there was no such post called
'Assistant Director'. With respect to the petitioner's application dated
17.06.2021, it was stated in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that the
petitioner has applied for plant working certificate only on 17.06.2021 with
only two working days for causing inspection and insurance of the same; and
the Divisional Engineer was not available in the office from 15.06.2021 to
23.06.2021 and hence, he could not see any letter received in his office. Thus,
the said contradictory statements made in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent authorities would only support the case of the petitioner that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
approached the second respondent in time, but the second respondent did not
consider the petitioner's request seeking plant working certificate.
18.3.2 It is further evident from the additional affidavit filed by
the first respondent that all the other bidders viz., respondents 4 and 5 made
their respective applications seeking quality certificate on
08.06.2021/09.06.2021, which were received on 09.06.2021 and the quality
certificates were issued to them on 14.06.2021, after conducting inspection on
10.06.2021. Whereas in the case of the petitioner, he applied for working
condition certificate on 07.05.2021 itself, which was received by the office of
the second respondent only on 07.06.2021, but prior to the date on which other
bidders made their applications. Even then, the petitioner's application was not
considered. The said fact would belie the statement made on the side of the
respondent authorities that the petitioner did not approach the second
respondent well in advance, like that of other private respondents, for issuance
of plant working certificate. Therefore, this court is of the view that the
inaction of the second respondent on the petitioner's application for issuance
of plant working certificate is arbitrary and unreasonable, which definitely
vitiates the tender process.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
19.1 As regards the second submission that there is clear cut violation
of the mandatory provision of Rules 11(2) and 20 of the Rules. For better
understanding, the said provisions are extracted below:
“Rule 11:Publication of Notice Inviting Tenders in Newspapers-
(2)The Tender Inviting authority shall have the Notice Inviting
Tenders published in daily newspapers. The number, editions and language
of the newspapers in which the Notice Inviting Tenders shall be published
will be based on the value of procurement as specified in the Annexure.”
As per annexure, if the financial limit of the tender works is above Rs.5 crores,
the notice inviting tender should be advertised in an English newspaper in the
All India Edition as well as in the Tamil newspapers having wide circulation
in the State.
“Rule 20. Minimum time for submission of tenders – (1)The Tender Inviting
Authority shall ensure that adequate time is provided for the submission of
tenders and a minimum time is allowed between date of publication of the
Notice Inviting Tenders in the relevant Tender Bulletin or in the newspapers
whichever is later and the last date for submission of tenders. This minimum
period shall be as follows-
(a)for tenders upto rupees two crores in value, fifteen days; and
(b)for tenders in excess of rupees two crores in value, thirty days.
(2)Any reduction in the time stipulated as per sub -rule (1) has to be
specifically authorized by an authority superior to the Tender Inviting
Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
19.2 The petitioner alleges that neither the notice inviting tender nor
the corrigendum 6 was published in accordance with Rule 11 read with
annexure to the Rules. Concededly, the value of the works is above Rs.5
crores. The notice inviting tender was published only in the New Indian
Express having circulation in South India and Dinamalar on 25.02.2021. The
corrigendum 6 revising the date for submission of bids and the date for
opening the same, was not published in any newspaper. Though the learned
Government counsel appearing for the respondent authorities pointed out that
in the notice inviting tender dated 22.02.2021, under the head 'NOTES', in
clause (9), it was specifically stated that Corrigendum if any, will be available
only in the website, the same cannot be countenanced by this court, as the said
clause itself is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Rules. Thus, as
rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent
authorities have not complied with the mandatory requirements as laid down in
Rule 11(2) of the Rules.
19.3.1 Similarly, it is alleged by the petitioner that the minimum
time of 30 days between the notice inviting tender and the last date of
submission of bids as prescribed under Rule 20 was not provided. The notice
inviting tender was published on 22.02.2021. The MCC commenced on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
26.02.2021 and concluded on 07.05.2021. The state wide lock down was
imposed from 10.05.2021 to 07.06.2021. Therefore, excluding the time under
MCC and covid 19 lockdown, only 19 days time was provided between the
notice inviting tender and the last date of submission of bids.
19.3.2 The aforesaid allegation was refuted on the side of the
respondent authorities by stating that the first respondent has granted sufficient
time of 117 days for submitting the bids, instead of minimum 30 days time as
provided under Rule 20 of the Rules.
19.3.3 This Court after having considered the submissions on both
sides, finds that the respondent authorities on one hand stated that due to MCC
and covid 19 situation, the petitioner's application dated 07.05.2021 received
on 07.06.2021 seeking plant working certificate was not considered, on the
other hand stated that 117 days were provided for submitting the bids
including all the days of MCC and lockdown. Even the time gap between the
publication of corrigendum 6 dated 14.06.2021 and the last date for
submission of bids mentioned therein as 22.06.2021 is only 8 days. Therefore,
the respondent authorities have not complied with the mandatory provisions of
Rule 20 in the tender process.
19.4 (i)In similar circumstances, in Sri Venkatram Spinners Pvt. Ltd
case (cited supra) relied on the side of the petitioner, this court held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
“13.On a careful consideration of the materials available on
record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side
and also the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel on either
side, it is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent had issued the tender
notification published in the Newspaper on 22.06.2017 for the supply of
polyester yarn for production of polycot Sarees and Dhoties under cost
free distribution of Sarees and Dhoties Scheme Pongal 2018. The last
date for submission of bid was 11.00 am on 07.07.2017. Admittedly,
the tender notification was published only in the Newspapers and in the
State Tender Bulletin. As per the provisions of Section 9(3) of the
Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, the Tender Inviting
Authority shall also publish the notice inviting tenders in Indian Trade
Journal and in daily Newspapers having wide circulation depending
upon the value of the procurement prescribed. As per Rule 11 (1) of the
Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, the Tender Inviting
Authority shall have the notice inviting tenders published in the Indian
Trade Journal in all cases where the value of procurement exceeds
Rs.50 crores. On 01.11.2011, a Government Order was also issued in
G.O.Ms.No.307 Finance (Salaries) Department wherein while
specifying the financial limits for advertising tender notice, the
Government had framed guidelines that if the value of the tender is
more than Rs.50 crores, the tender notice should be published in Indian
Trade Journal. Therefore, as per Section 9(3) of the Act and Rule 11 (1)
of the Rules and also G.O.Ms.No.307 dated 01.11.2011, if the value of
the tender is more than Rs.50 crores, the tender notice should be
published in the Indian Trade Journal. Admittedly, the tender
notification dated 22.06.2017 was not published in the Indian Trade
Journal. The provisions of Section 9(3) and Rule 11(1) are mandatory
and the said provisions cannot be given a go-by, by the authorities.
14.The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the un-
reported judgment made in Writ Appeal No.4066 of 2011 and 4739 of
2011 (cited supra) also held that non-publication of the notification
inviting tender in the Indian Trade Journal, as required under Rule 10 of
the Karnataka Transparency Public Procurement Act, 1999, is fatal and
vitiates the entire tender processing. The ratio laid down in the said
judgment squarely applies to the present case.
15.Since the tender notification has not been published as per
the provisions of the Act, on this ground alone, the notification is liable
to be quashed.
16.Apart from this, the petitioner has contented that the 3rd
respondent has not provided 30 days time for the submission of the
tenders from the date of publication of the notice inviting tenders to the
last date of submission of the tenders. In the case on hand, the
notification was published in the Newspapers on 22.06.2017 and the
last date for submission of the tenders was 07.07.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
17.The learned Advocate General submitted that under sub-rule
(2) of Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000,
the 3rd respondent had obtained the written authorization for reducing
the time limit from 30 days. The learned Advocate General also
produced the note dated 19.06.2017 put up by the 3rd respondent to the
2nd respondent for reducing the minimum period from 30 days to 15
days.
18.....
19.On a reading of the endorsement made by the 2nd
respondent, it is clear that inspite of the delay in calling for tender for
the years 2016 and 2017, citing the delay in the said orders as
precedence, the 2nd respondent had ordered for short tender, reducing
the minimum time limit contemplated under Rule 20. Merely because in
the previous years, the respondent had called for tender reducing the
time limit as contemplated under Rule 20, that cannot be cited as a
precedence for reducing the time limit from 30 days. There must be
acceptable reasons given by the superior authority viz., the 2nd
respondent for reducing the time limit to less than 30 days. The exercise
cannot be done in a mechanical way and there must be application of
mind and there must also be acceptable reasons for reducing the time
limit from 30 days. When the Rules say that there must be 30 days time
limit, it must be adhered to by the authorities, unless the superior
authority gives sufficient reason for reducing the time as contemplated
under Rule 20(2) of the Rules. The 2nd respondent has not given any
reason for reducing the time limit from 30 days, except stating that in
the previous years also, the time limit was reduced.
20.In these circumstances, the impugned tender notification
dated 22.06.2017 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same are
set aside.
21.Since the tender notification dated 22.06.2017 are set aside, I
do not find any reason to go into the merits of the Writ Petition in
W.P.No.17261 of 2017 in which Item Nos.5 & 6 of the tender
conditions are challenged by the petitioner. The respondents are at
liberty to call for fresh tender in accordance with the provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998.”
(ii)In yet another case in Appu Food Products case (cited supra), this
court was of the view that non-adherence of the mandatory provisions vitiates
the tender process. The relevant passage of the said order is extracted below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
“54. The next ground of attack is that there are various
procedural defects, such as, non publication in Indian Trade Journal and
All India News Papers by the respondents. The petitioners stated that the
respondents have violated the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (for short, 'the Act') and Tenders
Rules, 2000 (for short, 'the Rules'). According to them, as per Rule 11 of
the Rules, the Tender Inviting Authority shall have the notice inviting
tenders published in the Indian Trade Journal in all cases where the value
of the procurement exceeds Rs.50 crores; and the provisions of Rule 11
is also supported by the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Act. They
further submitted that the respondents have also violated Rule 20 of the
Rules by not providing 30 days time for the submission of the tenders
between the date of publication of notice inviting tenders and the last
date for submission of tenders. Placing reliance on the decision of this
Court in Sri Venkatram Spinners Pvt. Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu and
others (W.P.Nos.17261, 18987 and 18988 of 2017), the petitioners stated
that when Rule 20(2) of the Rules is not followed, then the tender is
liable to be quashed and it is not open for the respondents to claim that
the conditions are in the frame of policy making and hence, the tender
notification dated 20.08.2018 is liable to be quashed. The learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the impugned
G.O.Ms.No.57 contemplates the supply of eggs and the tender is for a
period of six months only and therefore, the respondent authorities have
to advertise and follow the procedure for the tendering process every six
months, which is going to cost enormous expenditure to the State
exchequer, which was sought to be avoided in the centralized system, as
per the statement of the respondent authorities in the earlier writ
petitions. It is also submitted that Clause 2(13) specifies that eggs should
be delivered directly to the Anganwadi/Noon Meal Centres; each zone
has nearly 15,000 centres (approx.) and totally one lakh centres located
all over the State, to which a minimum of 250-500 eggs (approx.) will
have to be supplied twice a week; as such, ensuring prompt supply of the
requisite quantity of eggs requires a central delivery system involving
sufficient manpower and skillfully planned logistic support, which can be
efficiently executed by a supplier of goods, who has that as a
predominant activity, rather than a poultry farmer whose primary
occupation is rearing layer hens; therefore, the tender condition for the
alleged reason of benefiting poultry farmers has seriously compromised
and jeopardized the main object of supplying quality eggs to the Noon
Meal Centres for the benefit of children.
55. On the contrary, the respondent authorities have stated in
their counter affidavit that they have not violated any of the provisions of
the Act and Rules and they have framed tender conditions for the benefit
of the beneficiaries and to foster healthy competition among the egg
suppliers and support the egg producers of the State, strictly following all
the provisions of the Act and Rules as well as the various Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisOrders. They have further stated that Rule 11(3) will not be attracted to
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the tenders have
been issued on zonal basis and the total requirement for each zone does
not exceed Rs.75 crores. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that
there is no vagueness in the tender conditions and the terms and
conditions of the tender are transparent. Hence, they strongly refuted the
allegations so made against the respondent authorities.
56. Before going into the rival submissions, it is to be noted
that the Act was enacted with the object of (a) eliminating irregularities
and corrupt practices in the tender processes, (b) to provide for fair and
equitable treatment to all, and (c) to make the whole process transparent.
Therefore, the tripod on which the Act stands, comprises (i) fairness, (ii)
equitable treatment of all, and (iii) transparency. Admittedly, the tender
notification was not published in the Newspapers and in the All India
Trade Journal. As per the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Act, the
Tender Inviting Authority shall also publish the notice inviting tenders in
Indian Trade Journal and in daily Newspapers having wide circulation
depending upon the value of the procurement prescribed. As per Rule 11
(1) of the Rules, the Tender Inviting Authority shall have the notice
inviting tenders published in the Indian Trade Journal in all cases where
the value of procurement exceeds Rs.50 crores. Therefore, as per Section
9(3) of the Act and Rule 11 (1) of the Rules, if the value of the tender is
more than Rs.50 crores, the tender notice should be published in the
Indian Trade Journal. Under the Act, the aforesaid objects are sought to
be achieved by looking at the whole tender process in a three
dimensional setting. All the provisions of the Act and the Rules are
aimed at taking care of (i) the best interests of the procuring entity (for
whose benefit the tender is floated), (ii) the perspective of those who
eventually lose in the race, and (iii) the perception of the public about the
manner in which the whole exercise was undertaken. Once these
underlying principles behind the Act and the Rules are violated, then, this
Court has to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to
interfere with the same. Rule 11(3) states that the tender ought to be
published in an All India Newspaper, the reason being that Act and Rules
visualize participation from all over the country, since the object of the
Act and Rules is for wider participation so as to make the tender process
more competitive. As such, this Court is of the view that the provisions
of Section 9(3) and Rule 11(1) are mandatory and the said provisions
cannot be given a go-by, by the respondent authorities and the failure to
adhere to the same, vitiates the tender process.”
(iii)In R.Kanagasabapthy's case (cited supra), it was held by this court
as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
“19. As seen from the aforementioned rules, in respect of
tenders upto Rs.2,00,00,000/- in value, 15 days time shall be provided
between the date of publication of the notice inviting tenders in the
relevant tender bulletin and the submission of tenders. In the case on
hand, the tender notification has been issued on 01.11.2020, whereas,
the date for submission of the tender has been fixed as 10.11.2020 and
15 days time has not been granted as per the requirements of Rule
20(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the
authorities referred to supra, wherein, the learned Single Judges of
this Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court have held that,
when the tender notification has been issued in violation of the
statutory provisions, it has to be struck down. In the case on hand, as
observed earlier, the respondent Municipal Corporation has not
followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the Tamil
Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000 since the date between the
tender notification and the date of submission of bids is only 10 days
and not 15 days, which is the minimum required period. Therefore,
necessarily the tender notification, dated 01.11.2020 issued by the
second respondent which is the subject matter of W.P.(MD)
No.15537 of 2020 has to be quashed, as it has not followed the
procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu
Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000. However, it does not preclude
the second respondent from issuing a fresh tender notification by
following Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules,
2000.
21. Admittedly, the 'Pay and Use Toilets' which were leased to
the petitioner were not put to use during the lock down period (i.e.)
from 24.03.2020 to 30.06.2020. The petitioner has admittedly given
representations on 14.08.2020 and 04.09.2020 seeking for extension
of lease due to the non-enjoyment of the lease period during the lock
down period by another period of 110 days.
22. This Court is of the considered view that the said
representations will have to be considered by the respondents on
merits and in accordance with law.
23. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned auction
notification, dated 01.11.2020 issued by the second respondent, which
is the subject matter of W.P.(MD) No.15537 of 2020 is hereby
quashed. However, it shall not preclude the Tirunelveli Municipal
Corporation from issuing a fresh notification by adhering to Rule 20
of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000. Accordingly,
W.P.(MD) No.15537 of 2020 is allowed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
Thus, in the light of the aforesaid orders, this court comes to an irresistible
conclusion that the respondent authorities have not scrupulously complied
with the mandatory provisions of Rules 11(2) and 20 of the Rules and on this
ground alone, the entire tender process is liable to be quashed.
20.1 The third submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is with respect to the nexus between the respondents 4 and 5.
Admittedly, the respondents 4 and 5, in both the cases, are related to each
other. It is evident from the documents produced before this court that the fifth
respondent in WP.No.13481 of 2021 is a partnership firm whose partners are
the wife and son of the fourth respondent. The fifth respondent in
WP.No.13488 of 2021 is a firm whose Managing Director is the son of the
fourth respondent. Even then, they were declared as qualified bidders in the
technical bids for the works under package nos.59 and 60, vide the impugned
tender summary reports.
20.2 According to the petitioner, the respondents 4 and 5, who are the
members of the same family, though doing same business separately, are in a
position to have access to each other's information to influence the proposal of
either or each other and there is every possibility of conflict of interest over the
tender process. Without considering the said aspect, the respondent authorities
declared them as successful bidders in the technical bids opened on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
23.06.2021. Subsequently, price bids were opened and the contracts were
awarded to the respective fifth respondents by work orders dated 25.06.2021.
20.3 Whereas, the learned Government counsel submitted that the
respondent authorities have acted strictly in accordance with the Act and Rules
and there was no specific clause in the notice inviting tender with respect to
the relationship between the bidders and hence, no weightage can be attributed
on the allegation raised by the petitioner.
20.4 It is contended on the side of the fifth respondents that there is no
common business or corporate relationship between the respondents 4 and 5
and they are the separate entities. They were not officially associated and their
family relationship cannot be equated with corporate relationship. Hence,
there was no conflict of interest over the tender process.
20.5 This court considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute
with regard to the relationship between the respondents 4 and 5. It is settled
law that any nexus between the bidding parties will undermine the tendering
process and therefore, the same cannot be wished away slightly. Undoubtedly,
there will be conflict of interest, if a bidder has relationship with another
bidder directly or through common third party that puts either or both of them
in a position to have access to each other's information about or to influence
the proposal of either or each other and that, the same is an eligible criterion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
even for shortlisting the bidders. Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in
Tender (Public-Private Partnership Procurement) Rules, 2012 pertains to
conflict of interest, as per which, it is the responsibility of the Tender Inviting
Authority and Tender Accepting Authority to ensure that the prospective
tenderers do not have a conflict of interest that affects the tender proceedings
and hence, the omission to include such a clause in the notice inviting tender,
that too in a high value contract, would lead to an inference that the respondent
authorities have not strictly adhered to the provisions of the Act and Rules.
20.6 In Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket
Association of Bihar and others [MANU/SC/0069/2015 : (2015) 3 SCC
251], it was held by the supreme court that the scope of conflict of interest is
not that such conflict resulted in any abuse of position, but mere possibility of
such abuse, taint such transactions.
20.7 In Travel News Services (India) Private Limited (cited supra),
this court was of the view that the personal nexus between the parties stands
on a higher footing as the parties may have easy access to information about
each other or to influence the response of either or each other. The relevant
passage of the said order is extracted below:
“12.5.As per Clause-2.2.1(c)(vi), it is clear that a bidder who has a
relationship with another bidder directly or through a common third party
that puts either or both of them in a position to have access of each other
information about or to influence the proposal of either or each other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
shall be deemed to have conflict of interest affecting the bidding process.
Therefore, from the above, I am of the view that the relationship between
two bidders need not necessarily be corporate relationship, but a close
relationship of two bidders that puts either or both of them in a position
to have access of each other information about or to influence the
proposal of either or each other, shall be deemed to have Conflict of
Interest. In Clause-2.2.1(c)(vi), the authority has not mentioned about the
corporate relationship. The main criteria under Clause-2.2.1(c)(vi) is
whether either or both of the bidders are in a position to have access of
each other information about or to influence the proposal of either or
each other. In the case on hand, the respondents 2 & 3, being close
relatives and were carrying on business in the same premises and also
have engaged a common Consultant, who had mistakenly mentioned the
Account ID of the 3rd respondent in the 2nd respondent's EMD Challan,
would establish that the respondents 2 & 3 were in a position to have
access to each other information about or to influence the proposal of
either or each other in the bidding process, which is a conflict of interest
affecting the bidding process.
12.6.So far as the contention of the Airports Authority of India is
concerned that only corporate relationship shall be taken as conflict of
interest cannot be accepted for the reason that the term Associate has
been defined in the RFP as follows:
“Associate shall mean, in relation to the Bidder/Consortium
Member, a person who controls, is controlled by, or is under the common
control with such Bidder/Consortium Member (the Associate). As used
in this definition, the expression control means, with respect to any
person which is a company or corporation, the ownership directly or
indirectly, of at least 75% (Seventy Five percent) of the voting shares of
such person, and with respect to a person which is not a company or
corporation, the power to direct the management and policies of such
person by operation of law.”
Similarly, the Bidder has been defined in the RFP as
“The Bidder shall mean a sole entity or a Consortium of entities,
submitting a proposal pursuant to the RFP. Therefore, even a sole entity
(i.e.) an individual is entitled to participate in the tender process.”
12.10.But, in the case on hand, when Clause-2.2.1(c)(vi) of RFP has been
violated, this Court has no other option, except to interfere in the tender
process. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the
Tendering Authority and no arbitrariness in essence and substance is the
heartbeat of fair play. While exercising the power of judicial review in
respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the Court is
concerned primarily as to whether there has been infirmity in the decision
making process. The Courts can certainly examine whether the decision
making process was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Tendering Authority has the public
duty to be fair to all concerned. The Tendering Authority is bound to
adhere to the criteria, standards and procedures laid down by them and
cannot depart from them arbitrarily.
12.11.So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
3rd respondent that even husband and wife do not automatically become
related persons and cannot automatically assume mutuality of interest is
concerned, the said proposition has been laid down in the judgments
pertaining to the Central Excise matters. The said proposition is
applicable to a case under Central Excise Act and cannot be applied to
the tender process, which bars two close relatives participating in the
tender process as per Clause-2.2.1(c)(vi) of the RFP.
13.In these circumstances, applying the bar under Clause-2.2.1(c)(vi) of
RFP, since the bids submitted by the 3rd respondent is contrary to the
tender condition of RFP dated October 2016, the same is liable to be set
aside.
14.So far as the Writ Petition in W.P.No.7251 of 2017 is concerned, the
petitioner has filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus
forbearing the 1st respondent from awarding the Letter of Award to the
3rd respondent and consequently award the same to the petitioner, being
the highest bidder, post disqualification of 3rd respondent at the technical
evaluation stage. Since it was brought to the notice of this Court that the
Tendering Authority had awarded the tender as early as on 04.03.2017
itself and that the Writ Petition was filed only after the award of the
tender (i.e.) on 22.03.2017, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition has
become infrucutous even on the date of filing of the Writ Petition.
15.The bid submitted by the 3rd respondent is declared as contrary to the
tender conditions of RFP dated October 2016. In the interest of justice,
the respondents 1, 4 & 5 are at liberty to call for fresh tender and conduct
the tender process in accordance with law following the terms and
conditions of the tender without any deviations whatsoever.”
20.8 At this juncture, pertinent it is to point out the very recent
judgment of the supreme court in Civil Appeal Nos.4862-4863 of 2021 dated
17th September 2021 [Uflex Limited v. Government of Tamil Nadu and
others] which touches upon the validity of the judgment of the Division Bench
of this court in Kumbhat Holographics v. Government of Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
[2021 SCC Online Mad 1724 : (2021) 4 Mad LJ 225], relied on the side of
the petitioner. The supreme court having examined the various decisions on
the scope of judicial review, observed that the courts can interfere with the
contractual matters, to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness,
bias and mala fide. At the same time, after analysing the facts of the case, the
supreme court was of the view that the Division Bench has fallen into an error
in almost sitting as an appellate authority on technological and commercial
expediency, which is not the role which a court ought to play. The relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment of the supreme court are profitably
reproduced below:
“40. We must begin by noticing that we are examining the case, as
already stated above, on the parameters discussed at the inception. In
commercial tender matters there is obviously an aspect of commercial
competitiveness. For every succeeding party who gets a tender there may
be a couple or more parties who are not awarded the tender as there can
be only one L-1. The question is should the judicial process be resorted to
for downplaying the freedom which a tendering party has, merely because
it is a State or a public authority, making the said process even more
cumbersome. We have already noted that element of transparency is
always required in such tenders because of the nature of economic
activity carried on by the State, but the contours under which they are to
be examined are restricted as set out in Tata Cellular and other cases. The
objective is not to make the Court an appellate authority for scrutinizing
as to whom the tender should be awarded. Economics must be permitted
to play its role for which the tendering authority knows best as to what is
suited in terms of technology and price for them.
41. The present dispute has its history in many prior endeavours by the
original petitioners which have proved to be unsuccessful. It does appear
that in a competitive market they have not been so successful as they
would like to be. Merely because a company is more efficient, obtains
better technology, makes more competitive bids and, thus, succeeds more
cannot be a factor to deprive that company of commercial success on that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
pretext. It does appear to us that this is what is happening; that the two
original petitioners are endeavouring to continuously create impediments
in the way of the succeeding party merely because they themselves had
not so succeeded. It is thus our view that the Division Bench has fallen
into an error in almost sitting as an appellate authority on technology and
commercial expediency which is not the role which a Court ought to play.
42. The checks and balances before the tendering process itself has been
provided by constitution of the various committees, more specifically the
TSC and the TSFC. The objective is to keep the role of these Committees
separately defined.
43. We are concerned with sale of liquor. The objective has been set out
by the State Government, i.e., use of such technology as would prevent
spurious liquor from being sold. It is a well-known fact that a large
revenue collection comes in Tamil Nadu through sale of liquor. It thus
must be left to the State Government to see how best to maximize its
revenue and what is the technology to be utilized to prevent situations
like spurious liquor, which in turn would impede revenue collection,
apart from causing damage to the consumers.
44. A grievance was made about what was stated to be “patented
technology”. At the stage when the concerned committees were still
looking to the objections/suggestions of the parties, Kumbhat and Alpha
rushed to the Court. The State Government did provide relief by issuing a
corrigendum to address the issue relating to hidden text being visible only
through Polaroid, as colour change background viewable with film as an
identifier did not attract the rigour of this stated patented technology. The
issue was actually over with that corrigendum.
45. Insofar as the participating entities are concerned, it cannot be
contended that all and sundry should be permitted to participate in
matters of this nature. In fact, in every tender there are certain qualifying
parameters whether it be technology or turnover. The Court cannot sit
over in judgment on what should be the turnover required for an entity to
participate. The prohibition arising from only a Limited company being
permitted to participate was again addressed by the corrigendum
permitting LLPs to participate. If entities like Kumbhat and Alpha want
to participate they must take some necessary actions. Alpha is already an
LLP. Kumbhat cannot insist that it will continue to be a partnership alone
and, thus, that partnerships must necessarily be allowed to participate.
46...
47...
48. We have also noticed the submissions based on the fact that repeated
endeavours of Alpha and Kumbhat have failed not only before the
Madras High Court but before different High Courts based on a similar
challenge. Broadly, similar tender conditions have been upheld. It cannot
be that every time a tender is floated, Kumbhat and Alpha would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
permitted to seek a toehold on one pretext or the other. As noticed, it is
not really the function of the Court to vet the terms of the NIT, as it is the
decision-making process which can be reviewed in judicial scrutiny.
49. A lot of emphasis has been placed by the Courts below in seeking to
go into the financial linkages between the two companies, i.e., Uflex and
Montage. The correct way of examining this issue should have been that
whether under the terms of the NIT, any of the aspects which were
examined by the Courts could be said to be a disqualification. In our
view, the answer to the same was in the negative. One company had
invested in another through certain preference shares without having any
controlling interest, this cannot be the basis of judicial scrutiny. The
present case is not one of an intercorporate battle or of minority
shareholders claiming the rights or any debts due, where the principle of
lifting the corporate veil should be applied. What one may have said in
some income tax proceedings, whether a small percentage of the funds of
one company have been utilized as investment in the other are hardly the
principles which should come into play in such a tender matter.
50. We are thus unequivocally of the view that the impugned order cannot
be sustained for all the aforesaid reasons and must be set aside and the
appeals are accordingly allowed.”
A cursory glance at the decision extracted above would reveal that the
supreme court commented upon the decision of the Division Bench of this
court with respect to the issue dealing with technological and commercial
expediency of the companies. After having found that the objective set out by
the Government in the said case was relating to use of technology as would
prevent spurious liquor from being sold, the supreme court has observed that it
must be left to the state Government to see how best to maximize its revenue
and what is the technology to be utilized to prevent situations like spurious
liquor, which in turn would impede revenue collection, apart from causing
damage to the consumers. It was further observed by the supreme court that in
every tender, there are certain qualifying parameters whether it be technology
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
or turnover; the court cannot sit over in judgment on what should be the
turnover required for an entity to participate; that, it is not really the function
of the court to vet the terms of the notice inviting tender, as it is the decision-
making process, which can be reviewed in judicial scrutiny. Ultimately, the
supreme court has set aside the Division Bench judgment and accordingly,
allowed the appeals. Whereas, in the instant case, the petitioner raised a plea
of conflict of interest as the respondents 4 and 5 in both the cases are closely
related to each other, though they are doing business by establishing separate
entities, besides challenging the tender process on the ground of arbitrariness,
malafide and violative of the mandatory requirements as laid down under the
Rules and hence, the facts obtaining herein are clearly distinguishable from the
case decided by the supreme court.
20.9 Thus, for the aforemade discussions, this court is of the
considered opinion that the conflict of interest is against the principle of
fairness and hence, the close relationship between the respondents 4 and 5 in
both the cases, assumes great significance as it undermines the tender process
and hence, the same cannot be disregarded in judicial review.
21. As a matter of fact, it is to be noted that though the petitioner
approached the second respondent well in advance, he was not issued with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
plant working certificate, which led him to eliminate in the tender process.
Without any delay, the petitioner immediately rushed to this court challenging
the said tender process. When he informed about the filing of the writ petitions
and requested to postpone the opening of price bids, the respondent authorities
did not respond to the same, opened the price bid, declared the fifth
respondents as successful bidders and awarded the contracts to them on
25.06.2021. As averred in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, the
estimated rate fixed by the first respondent for Package No.59 is
Rs.674,42,000.34 and the petitioner had quoted Rs.657,55,950.33 i.e., 2.5%
lower than the estimated rate. Whereas the fifth respondent had quoted a sum
of Rs.687,90,840.345 and the fourth respondent had quoted Rs.701,39,680.352
i.e.. higher than the estimated rate by 2% and 4% respectively. Similarly, the
petitioner had quoted the lesser value than the respondents 4 and 5 in respect
of Package No.60 as well. However, he was unable to qualify as the
successful bidder, in view of the arbitrariness and malafide on the part of
respondent authorities in not issuing plant working certificate. As discussed
above, the respondent authorities have conducted the tender process in undue
haste manner, without following due procedure as laid down in the Act and the
Rules and therefore, the entire tender process is liable to be quashed, in the
considered opinion of this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
22. At this stage, the learned counsel for the fifth respondents
submitted that pursuant to the work orders given to the fifth respondents, they
started the works and completed part of the same and that, they invested huge
amount in these works. In the event of cancelling the entire tender process,
they would be put to irreparable loss, inconvenience and hardship. The
submissions so made on the side of the fifth respondents cannot be slightly
brushed aside, as huge public money is involved and that, there would be
considerable loss to the public exchequer, if the entire tender process is set
aside.
23. It is noteworthy to mention here that the supreme court has
repeatedly held that the courts have ample powers under Article 226 of the
constitution to mould the relief and give a relief even if a prayer is not sought.
Therefore, taking note of all the attendant circumstances, this court, to meet
the ends of justice and keeping in mind the larger public interest, deems it fit
and appropriate to quash the tender process and consequential award of
contracts granted to the fifth respondents to the limited extent of unfinished
works qua package nos.59 and 60 and are accordingly, quashed. As a sequel,
the first respondent shall call for fresh tender only in respect of the unfinished
works and conduct the tender process in accordance with law following the
terms and conditions without any deviations whatsoever.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
24. With the aforesaid directions, both the writ petitions stand
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
29.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
rsh
To
1. Superintending Engineer (Highways)
State of Tamil Nadu
Highways Department
NABARD and Rural Roads Circle
Salem - 1
2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)
Quality Control Division, Salem - 7
3. The Deputy Director (Highways)
Office of the Divisional Engineer (Highways)
Quality Control Division
Salem – 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
R. MAHADEVAN, J
rsh/rk
Pre-delivery Order in
WP Nos. 13481 & 13488/2021
29.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
