Madras High Court
The Executive Director (South) vs G.Jeyasingh on 3 April, 2023
W.A.No.768 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.768 of 2023
1.The Executive Director (South),
M/s.Food Corporation of India,
No.8, Mayor Sathyamoorthy Road,
Chetpet, Chennai-600 031.
2.The General Manager (TN),
Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
No.8, Mayor Sathyamoorthy Road,
Chetpet, Chennai-600 031. .. Appellants
Vs
G.Jeyasingh,
Proprietor of M/s.Sri Paulthai Lorry,
No.290A/3, Sivanthakulam Road,
Tuticorin-628 003. .. Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 11.1.2023 made in W.P.No.26990 of 2022.
___________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.768 of 2023
For the Appellants : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 11.1.2023 made in W.P.No.26990 of 2022.
2. The entire controversy revolves around invitation of tender
for awarding a transport contract for two years commencing from
November, 2022. As the bid of the writ petitioner/respondent
herein was not accepted by the appellants, a writ petition has been
filed seeking a direction to the appellants to accept the technical bid
of the writ petitioner/respondent herein and to open the financial
bid.
3. The learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner/
respondent herein satisfies the conditions of tender and is duly
qualified to participate in it and, accordingly, directed the appellants
to proceed to open the tender for the financial bid. Challenging the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.768 of 2023
same, the appellants have filed this writ petition.
4. Two grounds have been urged by learned counsel for the
appellants. Firstly, it is contended that the value of the contract
earlier executed by the writ petitioner/respondent herein in a single
financial year is less than Rs.2,28,50,000/-, whereas a tenderer
should have undertaken the work to an extent of 25% of the
contract amount. Inasmuch as the quantum of work undertaken by
the writ petitioner/respondent is less than the required stipulated
amount, the writ petitioner/respondent is disqualified. Secondly, it
is submitted that the certificate issued by the Warehouse Manager
of the FCI (PEG) Godown, Tiruvannamalai, cannot be reckoned as a
valid certificate in terms of the tender conditions.
5. The learned Single Judge held that the total amount of
contract executed by the writ petitioner/respondent with the FCI
(PEG) Godown, Tiruvannamalai from 2.11.2018 to 1.11.2020 was
Rs.10,88,61,044/-, 25% value of which is more than the amount of
Rs.2,28,50,000/-. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has held that
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.768 of 2023
the warehouse is operated by a private entity and the certificate
issued by the Warehouse Manager can be verified by the FCI
authorities and it was further held that the appellants should not
stand on technicalities. Assailing the said order, the FCI has filed
this appeal.
6. A perusal of the qualification conditions for tender in Clause
3 of the tender conditions shows that experience certificate should
be issued by the clients on their letter head. For ready reference,
Clause 3(II) is quoted hereunder:
“3. Qualification conditions for Tender:
(I) .....
(II) Experience details in the Proforma prescribed at
Appendix – VI shall be furnished by tenderer. The
information furnished in Appendix – VI shall be
supported by experience certificate issued by client
(s) on their letter head.”
7. In the case on hand, the learned Single Judge has given a
categorical finding that the warehouse is operated by a private
entity and the certificate had been signed by the Warehouse
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.768 of 2023
operator of the said private entity, namely, PEG, which is explicitly
clear from a perusal of the certificate which is found at page 112 of
the typed-set of papers. We do not find any necessity to interfere
with the said finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge. In any
event, the appellants are not precluded from verifying the
authenticity of the said certificate and they can verify the details
and countersign the particular certificate, rather than sticking on to
the technicalities.
8. With regard to the quantum of work executed by the writ
petitioner/respondent during the previous years, it is seen that the
writ petitioner/respondent executed the work as handling and
transport contractor at FCI (PEG), Tiruvannamalai from 2.11.2018
to 1.11.2020 and the total value of the work for the particular
period was Rs.10.88 crores, of which 25% is exceeding to Rs.2.28
crore. On this ground also, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the direction of the learned Single Judge to open the financial
bid of the writ petitioner/respondent.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.768 of 2023
9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal fails and the
same is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.7473 of 2023 is closed.
There will be no order as to costs.
(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
03.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bbr
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.768 of 2023
T.RAJA, ACJ.
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bbr
W.A.No.768 of 2023
03.04.2023
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
