Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs P.Sangeetharaj on 5 September, 2023
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 05.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A. Nos. 374, 1493 to 1565, 1568 and 1570 to 1662 of 2023
and
C.M.P. Nos. 14415 to 14430, 14432, 14433, 14435, 14436, 14438,
14440, 14442, 14443, 14445 to 14456, 14458 to 14460, 14462 to
14471, 14473 to 14507, 14509 to 14511, 14513, 14514, 14516 to
14531, 14533 to 14545, 14547 to 14552, 14554 to 14570, 14572 to
14575, 14580, 14582, 14599, 14600, 14616 to 14798 of 2023
W.A. No. 374 of 2023:-
1. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited,
Thalamuthu Natarajar Maligai, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
2. The District Manager/Sub-Collector,
TASMAC Limited, Thiruvallur (East) District,
No. 1, Bangalore High Road,
Sembarambakkam,
Chennai – 600 123. ... Appellants
-vs-
1. P.Sangeetharaj
2. G.Karthikeyan
3. M.Gopinath
4. K.Alex Silva
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 48
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
5. Prem Kumar Jecab
6. Ayyapan
7. V.Selvam
8. V.Selvam
9. Vetrivendhan
10. M.Gopinath
11. S.Krishnamoorthy
12. R.Jeyavel
13. T.Magendhiran
14. V.Velayutham
15. L.Ulaganathan
16. V.Ramesh
17. S.Murali
18. T.Marimuthu
19. R.D.Veerasamy
20. K.Senthil Kumar
21. R.Ramesh
22. R.Ramesh
23. V.Kumarasamy
24. M.Amala
25. Balamurugan
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 48
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
26. S.Sundaramahalingam
27. R.Jeyavel
28. S.Sathyamurthy
29. C.Pandiyan
30. Dhanasekar
31. Jeyakumar
32. S.Ramesh
33. Prabakaran
34. Ramanathan
35. R.Panneer Selvam
(R2 to R35 are impleaded vide
order dated 26.07.2023 in C.M.P.
No. 8421 of 2022 etc., batch) ... Respondents
Prayer:- Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,1865 to set aside
the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 21391 of 2022 etc., batch
dated 30.09.2022, thereby allowing the Writ Appeal.
For the Appellants : Mr. R.Shunmugasundaram,
Advocate General
assisted by Mr. K.Sathish Kumar,
Standing Counsel and
Ms. A.G.Shakeena
in W.A. Nos. 374, 1493 to 1565, 1568, 1570 to
1584, 1586 to 1591, 1593, 1594, 1596 to 1614,
1616 to 1659, 1661 and 1662 of 2023 and
Mr. V.Giri, Senior Counsel
assisted by
Ms. Indira in W.A. Nos. 1585, 1592, 1595, 1615
and 1660 of 2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3 of 48
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
For the Respondents : Mr. AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel
assisted by
Mr. AR.Karthik Lakshmanan
for Mr. L.Palanimuthu
in W.A. Nos. R1 in 374, 1503, 1517, 1558, 1565,
1571, 1601, 1611, 1618, 1620 and 1623 of 2023,
Mr. K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel
for M/s. K.M.Vijayan Associates
(for R2 to R25 in W.A. No. 374 of 2023) and W.A.
Nos. 1493 to 1495, 1498 to 1502, 1504, 1509,
1510, 1512, 1516, 1522, 1523, 1527, 1528,
1540, 1542, 1551, 1557, 1559 to 1561, 1563,
1573 to 1575, 1578 to 1580, 1583, 1584, 1586,
1590, 1593, 1598, 1600, 1603, 1604, 1607,
1608, 1609, 1612 to 1614, 1622, 1624, 1627,
1629, 1630, 1639, 1641, 1643, 1653, 1657, 1661
and 1662 of 2023,
Mr. R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Manimaran and Mrs. Ambika
(for R25 in W.A. No. 374 of 2023) and W.A.
Nos. 1531, 1552, 1564, 1576, 1582, 1589, 1602,
1605, 1617, 1625, 1628, 1631, 1635, 1637, 1644
to 1646, 1648 to 1650, 1654 and 1658 of 2023,
Mr. S.Chandrasekar (for R26 in W.A. No. 374 of
2023)
Mr. S.Sarathchandran (for R27 to 31 in W.A.
No. 374 of 2023)
Mr. B.Harish (for R32 to R35 in W.A. No. 374 of
2023)
Mr. D.Babu Varadharajan for Mr. A.Rajaguru
in W.A. Nos. 1514, 1515, 1539, 1543, 1544,
1562, 1568, 1570, 1587, 1591, 1597, 1599,
1621, 1651 and 1655 of 2023,
Mr. Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel
for M/s. T.S.Baskaran
in W.A. Nos. 1595 and 1633 of 2023,
Mr. Adhith Narayan Vijayaraghavan
in W.A. Nos. 1594 and 1616 of 2023,
Mr. S.Doraisamy
in W.A. Nos. 1585, 1592 and 1615 of 2023,
Mr. K.Venkatesan in W.A. No. 1640 of 2023, and
Mr. Anirudh Krishnan in W.A. No. 1610 of 2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4 of 48
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.)
These intra-Court appeals invoking Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, 1865, arise out of the common order dated 30.09.2022 in W.P.
No. 21391 of 2022 etc., batch passed by the Writ Court.
2. The parties are hereinafter referred as per their description in
the said Writ Petitions for the sake of clarity and convenience.
3. In the State of Tamil Nadu, monopoly in retail vending of liquor
has been conferred on the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation
Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'TASMAC' for short). Rules 3 and 4 of
the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) made in exercise of
powers conferred under Sections 17-C, 17-D, 21, 22-D and 54 of the
Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, pertain to the grant of licence for retail
vending of liquor in shops and bars for the whole of the State of Tamil
Nadu. Rule 2(r) of the Rules defines 'shop' as the building in which the
liquor is stocked and sold, and as per Rule 2(d) of the Rules, 'bar' means
a place located within the shop or adjoining the shop used for
consumption therein of liquor. While Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules pertain to
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5 of 48
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
the location of the shop, Rule 9-A inserted by G.O. Ms. No. 20, Home, P &
E (VI) Department dated 29.03.2013 issued by the Government of Tamil
Nadu, reads as follows:-
“9-A. Grant of privilege to run the bar.- The privilege of
running bars may be granted to private parties by tender. The
Board of the corporation may decide the upset price and other
terms and conditions of tender, from time to time, with the prior
approval of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. The
Corporation, as agency shall collect the tender amount from the
successful tenderers and remit the same to the Government on or
before the 25th of the following month and the Corporation may
retain 1% of the amount so collected as agency commission.”
The said rule was later re-numbered as Rule 9-B by G.O. Ms. No. 17,
Home, P&E (VI) Department dated 13.02.2022 issued by the Government
of Tamil Nadu. Rules 10 and 11 of the Rules read as follows:-
“10. Location of Bar.– (1) The bar shall lie within the shop
or adjoining the shop.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6 of 48
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
(2) The bar shall have a minimum plinth area of fifteen
square metres. The requirement of plinth area for any bar
exceeding fifteen square metres shall be decided by the Collector.
(3) Every bar shall be housed in pucka building and no part
of the bar shall be thatched either on the sides or on the roof. The
bar room shall be sufficiently screened so that consumption of
liquor is not visible from outside and shall also be provided with
fans. Sufficient number of tables and chairs for the consumers to
conveniently sit and consume liquor shall be provided. Such room
shall not be used as a club or recreation room or for any other
purpose whatsoever. No gambling or any kind of disorderly
conduct in the shop shall be permitted.
(4) Facilities such as drinking water and wash basin within
the surroundings of each shop premises shall be provided and the
shop, its premises and surroundings shall be always kept clean,
hygienic and well lit.
(5) Every shop shall have a signboard in Tamil in front of the
shop showing the number of the shop and details regarding
authorization issued by the Corporation for the shop, the price of
liquor in different sizes of bottles sold in the shop shall also be
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7 of 48
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
displayed. There shall also be displayed on the signboard the
following slogans in bold letters about the evils of drinking and
such other slogans as may be approved by the Commissioner.
“kJ – ehl;Lf;F. tPl;Lf;F. capUf;F nfL”
“Liquor – ruins country, family and life”
11. Working hours of the shop and bar.– No business
shall be transacted at the shop and bar except during the hours as
may be specified by the Government by order.”
4. The Managing Director of TASMAC had issued Circular No. A3/
19/2014 dated 22.07.2014 relating to the instructions to be followed in
granting of privilege to run the bar and the same is extracted below:-
“TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED
CMDA TOWER-II, IV FLOOR, GANDHI IRWIN BRIDGE ROAD
EGMORE, CHENNAI – 600 008
Circular No.A3/19/2014 dated 22 July 2014
Rc.No.P1/6411/2011
CIRCULAR
Sub :- TASMAC Ltd., - Bar Tender – inclusion of certain
clauses in the Tender Documents and instruction
to be followed while evaluating the bar tender and
awarding the contract – reg.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8 of 48
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
Ref :- The office letter No.Rc.No.P1/6411/2011 dated
18.06.2015.
-----
In continuation of this Office letter referred above, the
following instructions are issued in connection with bar tender-
1. The tender applicants need not enclose the No objection
Certificate, obtained from the bar premises owner, along with the
bar documents.
2. The Tender Inviting Authority should evaluate the tenders
only based on price bids received from the bidders subject to
compliance of other, terms and conditions of the tender.
3. After evaluation of the price bids and selection of the
highest bidder (H1), the Tender Inviting Authority should intimate,
within 24 hours, the successful bidder (H1) about the selection
subject to submission of the following within seven days by the
successful bidder-
a) The rental agreement between the bar premises owner
and the successful bidder;
b) Single demand draft for the security deposits; and
c) Single demand draft for the current month bard amount.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
4. The rental agreement between the bar premise owner and
the successful bidder must contain, inter-alia, the following clause-
“The Lessor unconditionally permits the lessee to
undertake the business of running the bar including
collecting empty bottles and selling of eatables during
the period of lease agreement”.
5. If the successful bidder (H1) fails to furnish the rental
agreement entered into with the bar premises owner within seven
days, the Tender Inviting Authority may request the next highest
bidder (H2) to match the offered/bid price of highest bidder (H1)
and only upon acceptance of the same, award the contract to H2
bidder provided that H2 bidder furnish the rental agreement that
he has entered into with bar premises owner.
6. If bidder fails to furnish the rental agreement to the Tender
Inviting Authority, then the bidders will perpetually be
banned/blacklisted to participate in subsequent tenders of TASMAC
in addition to forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposits of the
bidders.
7. According to rule 2(d) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail
Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, “bar” means a place
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
located within the shop or adjoining the shop used for consumption
therein of 'liquor'. Thus, it is hereby clarified that the word
“adjoining” means premises located immediate left side/right
side/back side of the shop or immediate top floor, or immediate
bottom floor to the shop and in all cases the bar premises walls
should physically touch any wall of the retail vending shop.
8. The Tender Inviting Authority should not accept single offer
and shall invariably re-tender wherever single/no offer is received
for any shop.
9. The Tender Inviting Authority should invariably incorporate
the following clauses in the bar tender document:-
“Bidder must enclose a copy of the first page of bank
passbook of the bidder containing photo and present
address of the bidder. This copy should be attested by
either the concerned bank branch manager or notary
public”.
10. In so far tenders which are already published or under the
process of awarding the contract, the Tender Inviting Authority
must obtain a copy of first page of bank passbook of the bidder
containing photo and present address of the bidder attested by
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
either the concerned bank branch manager or notary public. The
Tender Inviting Authority must cross check the details of bank
document with the address proof and ID proof submitted by the
bidders along with the tender documents.
Sd/-
Managing Director
To
All Senior Regional Managers,
All District Managers.
//By order//
Sd/-
Section Officer.”
On a bare reading of the said circular, it is evident that it is intended to
supplement the procedure to be followed under Rules 9-B and 10 of the
Rules in locating the bar attached to a liquor vending shop and entering
into rental agreement with the owner of that premises for running such
bar.
5. TASMAC had published the Notification bearing Na. Ka. No. A3/
1382/2022 dated 02.08.2022 calling for tender for grant of privilege to
run the bar attached to some of its shops for the period from September
2022 to December 2023 without any condition insisting for production of
consent / no objection certificate from the owner of the premises where
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
the bar was proposed to be run by the applicant. Some of the existing
holders of the privilege to run such bars attached to the shops had filed
the Writ Petitions challenging the said Circular No. A3/19/2014 dated
22.07.2014 issued by the Managing Director of TASMAC or the
Notification bearing Na. Ka. No. A3/1382/2022 dated 02.08.2022
published by TASMAC or both. The Writ Court was of the view that the
decision of TASMAC to grant the privilege to run the bar attached to its
shop without any condition insisting for production of No Objection
Certificate/consent from landlord of the premises where the bar was
proposed to be run by the applicant was contrary to the directions issued
by this Court in the following cases:-
(i) S.Ganesan -vs- Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Chennai
[(2000) 1 CTC 193];
(ii) G.Sethupathy -vs- Senior Regional Manager, Tamilnadu State
Marketing Corporation Ltd., Madurai (Order dated 08.10.2009
in W.P. (MD) No. 8591 of 2009);
(iii) Deputy Collector/District Manager, Tamil Nadu State
Marketing Corporation, Tiruchirapalli -vs- R.Ramkumar
(Order dated 14.03.2012 in W.A. (MD) No. 1492 of 2011); and
(iv) G.Sakthivel -vs- Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State
Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Chennai (Order dated
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
28.03.2018 in W.P. (MD) No. 1515 to 1518 and 1899 to 1940 of
2018).
On that basis, the Writ Petitions were disposed holding as follows:-
“99. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS:
(i) The batch of Writ Petitions challenging tender Notification
are allowed and impugned tender Notification dated
02.08.2022 is quashed.
(ii) In light of order of this Court in W.P.Nos.1515 to 1518 of
2018 dated 28.03.2018 that has attained finality, the State
having accepted the order in full and reiterating such
acceptance in subsequent orders passed in W.P.(MD)
No.1839 of 2018 etc. batch on 19.11.2018 and following the
orders of this Court dated 28.03.2018 and 19.11.2018,
clauses (1) to (6) of the impugned Circular No.A3/19/2014
dated 22.07.2014 are set aside and the State directed to
issue a Circular afresh strictly in line with the decisions of the
Division Bench in the cases of G.Sethupathy -vs- Senior
Regional Manager, Tamilnadu State Marketing
Corporation Ltd., Madurai (Order dated 08.10.2009 in
W.P. (MD) No. 8591 of 2009), S.Ganesan -vs- Assistant
Commissioner, Excise, Chennai [(2000) 1 CTC 193] and
Deputy Collector/District Manager, Tamil Nadu State
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
Marketing Corporation, Tiruchirapalli -vs-
R.Ramkumar (Order dated 14.03.2012 in W.A. (MD) No.
1492 of 2011) and the observations contained in this order.
(iii) CCTV cameras shall be set up in all the TASMAC centres
where they are unavailable now and it shall be ensured that
the cameras are functional at all times. It shall be ensured
that the events of the tender opening day are videographed,
as a matter of routine. Necessary instructions shall be issued
to enable the same.
(iv) In light of the aforesaid orders, mandamus, as sought,
forbearing the respondents from in any manner, proceeding
further or finalizing the tender conducted by the respondent
pursuant to the tender notification dated 02.08.2022 is
issued and re-issue of tender shall be in strict compliance of
the direction at point (ii) and (iii) above.
(v) It is made clear that in subsequent tenders, it is TASMAC
that must obtain NOC from the property owners. As regards
the procedure to be followed for obtaining of lease
agreement by the applicants, a hassle-free, transparent and
smooth procedure must be put in place by TASMAC and
implemented in the tenders to follow.”
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
Aggrieved thereby, TASMAC has preferred these appeals against the
common order passed by the Writ Court in the said batch of Writ
Petitions, before this Court.
6. We have elaborately heard Mr. R.Shunmugasundaram, Learned
Advocate General assisted by Mr. K.Sathish Kumar, Learned Standing
Counsel and Ms. A.G.Shakeena, Learned Counsel and Mr. V.Giri, Learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Indira, Learned Counsel for the
Respondents and Mr. AR.L.Sundaresan, Learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Mr. AR.Kathik Lakshmanan, Learned Counsel, Mr. K.M.Vijayan, Learned
Senior Counsel, Mr. R.Singaravelan, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr. Manimaran and Mrs. Ambika, Learned Counsel, Mrs. Chitra Sampath,
Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.Chandrasekar, Learned Counsel,
Mr. S.Sarathchandran, Learned Counsel, Mr. B.Harish, Learned Counsel,
Mr. D.Babu Varadharajan, Learned Counsel, Mr. Adhith Narayan
Vijayaraghavan, Learned Counsel, Mr. S.Doraisamy, Learned Counsel,
Mr. K.Venkatesan, Learned Counsel and Mr. Anirudh Krishnan, Learned
Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the materials placed on record,
apart from the pleadings of the parties.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
7. It is vehemently contended by the Learned Advocate General
and Learned Senior Counsel appearing for TASMAC that the Writ Court
exceeded the scope of judicial review permissible in contractual matters
pertaining to the State. It is explained that the Petitioners are existing
licensees of the bars who have an hidden agenda to indefinitely continue
the business of running the bar without increasing the privilege fee
defeating public interest. They had abused the legal process by filing the
Writ Petitions with oblique motives of creating a cartel in their favour to
prevent TASMAC from obtaining the best possible price for augmenting
revenue. The effect of the impugned order of the Writ Court was that the
commercial wisdom of TASMAC to boost its revenue has been thwarted
and it has been forced to restrict competition by denying potential
participation from all eligible persons.
8. The correctness of the impugned order is supported by the
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners by emphasizing that the
business interests of the Petitioners, who have substantially invested
in the bars, has to be protected and the restraint on invitation to all
persons to participate in the tender without consent / no objection
certificate from the owners of the premises would have to be approved,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
particularly, when this Court on earlier occasions has also ruled to that
effect.
9. Before proceeding to examine the rival claims, it requires to be
noticed that a Learned Judge of this Court in G.Sakthivel -vs- Managing
Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC),
Chennai (Order dated 28.03.2018 in W.P. (MD) No. 1519 of 2018) has
already upheld the validity of the Circular No. A3/19/2014 dated
22.07.2014 issued by the Managing Director of TASMAC. However, on a
reading of the impugned order, it appears that the said decision had not
been brought to the notice of the Writ Court.
10. Be that as it may, on the same day, in G.Sakthivel -vs-
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation
(TASMAC), Chennai (Order dated 28.03.2018 in W.P. (MD) Nos. 1515 to
1518 and 1899 to 1940 of 2018), the same Learned Judge of this Court
had, however, set aside the condition in the tender issued in furtherance
to the Notification in Na. Ka. No. 777/2017/CV-3 dated 10.01.2018
published by TASMAC insisting upon the applicant to produce 'No
Objection Certificate' from the owner of the bar premises stating as
follows:-
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
“22. Getting No Objection Certificate and also entering into a
lease agreement with the bar premises owner will arise only in the
event of the privilege for running bar is granted to third parties.
When the fourth respondent is retaining the privilege of running
the bar and only permitting some third parties to enter into the bar
for the purpose of collecting empty bottles and selling eatables, as
per the above said Circular, it is only the TASMAC, being the lessee
should get permission and they cannot insist upon the tenderers to
get No Objection Certificate. In the above circumstances, imposing
such a condition is wholly arbitrary and unwarranted. Therefore, I
have no hesitation to set aside the condition imposed by the fourth
respondent, insisting upon the tenderers to get No Objection
Certificate from the bar premises owner.”
During an earlier occasion, this Court in S.Ramanathan -vs- Managing
Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.(TASMAC)
(Order dated 28.10.2014 in W.P. No. 19073 of 2014 etc., batch) was
dealing with a claim seeking that TASMAC must be restrained from
granting license to collect empty bottles and sell eatables in bar attached
to various liquor vending shops run by any person without 'no objection
certificate' from the Petitioners therein, who were either owners or lessees
of the bar premises, and it was held as follows:-
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
“7. .... From the reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Division
Bench, it is clear that the State should insist upon a no-objection
certificate from the landlord and the Court finds that such
insistence is neither arbitrary or unreasonable nor in any manner
malafide. In fact in the case on hand prior to the present
notification, such a condition had existed. However, before filing of
these writ petitions, notification has been issued by TASMAC on
09.07.2014 in which this condition was conspicuously absent,
which made the petitioners to rush to this Court. It is to be further
noted that the TASMAC is the licensee of the premises i.e., the
shop or the bar. The license which is granted is only for the
purpose of running the bar for consumption of liquor sold by
TASMAC. Therefore, when TASMAC inducts a third party into the
premises it is mandatory for the TASMAC to insist upon a
no-objection certificate from the owner of the premises failing
which the rule itself would be vitiated and it would affect the rights
of the petitioners, over reaching the scope of the tenancy or going
in a manner which is prejudicial to the petitioner/ landlord. The
landlord may choose to whom he may grant NOC and therefore
the respondents should not have issued the tender notice without
such a condition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
8. However, during the pendency of the writ petitions, a
circular has been issued on 22.07.2014 which contemplates that
the successful bidder/ highest bidder is required to produce the
rental agreement with the owner of the premises in which there
should be a condition stating that the owner of the premises
unconditionally permits the licensee/ successful bidder to
undertake business for running bar including collection of empty
bottles and sell eatables in the bar attached to the TASMAC
shop, during the lease period. Therefore, such condition
mandates production of no-objection certificate. The circular
dated 22.07.2014 also states that failure to produce such a
rental agreement within 7 days, the Tender Inviting Authority
may request the next highest bidder to match the offer/ bid
price of the highest bidder. Further, the circular states that if the
bidder fails to furnish the rental agreement to the Tender
Inviting Authority, then the bidders will perpetually be banned/
blacklisted to participate in the subsequent tenders. In the light
of the subsequent Circular dated 22.07.2014, the relief sought
for by the petitioners has been considered and granted.
9. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and the
respondents are directed to insist upon no-objection certificate/
lease agreement from the owner/ landlord of the premises with
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
all the relevant clauses from the highest/ successful bidder, as
confirmed by the Tender Inviting Authority and as stipulated in
the Circular dated 22.07.2014. Consequently, the connected
M.P.s are closed. No order as to costs ”
It could be noticed from that decision that the Circular No. A3/19/2014
dated 22.07.2014 issued by the Managing Director of TASMAC during the
pendency of that litigation had been approved.
11. It would assume significance here that in the decisions in
G.Sakthivel -vs- Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation (TASMAC), Chennai (Order dated 28.03.2018 in W.P.
(MD) Nos. 1515 to 1518 and 1899 to 1940 of 2018) and S.Ramanathan
-vs- Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation
Ltd.(TASMAC) (Order dated 28.10.2014 in W.P. No. 19073 of 2014 etc.,
batch), the Court had proceeded on the premise as if Circular No.
A3/19/2014 dated 22.07.2014 issued by the Managing Director of
TASMAC had imposed a condition that tenderers would have to obtain 'no
objection certificate' from the owner of the bar premises, whereas it
actually contains a clause to the contrary that the tender applicants need
not enclose the 'no objection certificate' obtained from the bar premises
owner along with the tender documents, and a rental agreement entered
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
by the successful bidder with the owner of the bar premises would have to
be submitted within seven days from the time of intimation of selection
after evaluation of the price bids.
12. The Division Bench of this Court in S.Ganesan -vs- Assistant
Commissioner, Excise, Chennai [(2000) 1 CTC 193] had upheld the
validity of Rule 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules,
1989. The said rule, which required the licensees of the liquor vending
shops to produce certificate in the prescribed format regarding their
ownership or lease of the building where those shops were to be located
with their suitability from the revenue officials, have been repealed, and it
related to the earlier regime where private individuals were granted
licensees to operate liquor vending shops. The observations made by the
Court in that context do not have any relevance in the changed scenario,
where a new set of rules conferring exclusive privilege to TASMAC to
operate the shops, has been put in place. The privilege to individuals is
now confined only to run the bars attached to those shops to sell eatables
and collect used bottles. Moreover, relief had been declined to the
Petitioners in those cases before the Court and nothing adverse could be
inferred against the State, much less TASMAC, in that case.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
13. The other decisions in G.Sethupathy -vs- Senior Regional
Manager, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Madurai
(Order dated 08.10.2009 in W.P. (MD) No. 8591 of 2009) and Deputy
Collector/ District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation, Tiruchirapalli -vs- R.Ramkumar (Order dated
14.03.2012 in W.A. (MD) No. 1492 of 2011) relate to periods prior to the
introduction of Rule 9-A in the Rules and the Circular No. A3/19/2014
dated 22.07.2014 issued by the Managing Director of TASMAC. As such, it
would not be possible to construe as if the said decisions have precluded
TASMAC from stipulating Clauses (1) to (6) in the Circular
No. A3/19/2014 dated 22.07.2014 issued by it.
14. In this backdrop, it must also be pointed out that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Regional Manager -vs- Pawan Kumar
Dubey [(1976) 3 SCC 334] has highlighted that it is the rule deducible
from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which
constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts
which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make
a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the
same principles are applied in each case to similar facts. The Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Padma Sundara Rao
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
(Dead) -vs- State of Tamil Nadu [(2002) 3 SCC 533] has aptly ruled in
this regard as follows:-
“Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing
as to how the factual situations fits in with the fact situation of the
decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in
treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are
words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that
judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a
particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington -vs- British
Railways Board (1972) 2 WLR 537. Circumstantial flexibility, one
additional or different fact may make a world of difference
between conclusions in two cases.”
15. In the absence of any challenge in further legal proceedings, the
aforesaid decisions of this Court in Deputy Collector/District Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, Tiruchirapalli -vs-
R.Ramkumar (Order dated 14.03.2012 in W.A. (MD) No. 1492 of 2011),
G.Sethupathy -vs- Senior Regional Manager, Tamilnadu State
Marketing Corporation Ltd., Madurai (Order dated 08.10.2009 in W.P.
(MD) No. 8591 of 2009) and G.Sakthivel -vs- Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Chennai (Order
dated 28.03.2018 in W.P. (MD) Nos. 1515 to 1518 and 1899 to 1940 of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
2018), may have attained finality in respect of the Petitioners in those
cases. However, it cannot be treated as perpetually creating any fetter on
TASMAC to defend its right to grant the privilege of running bars attached
to its shops to the applicants in future tenders without insisting upon
consent / no objection certificate from the owners or lessees of those
premises. In this regard, it would be useful to extract the dictum laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra
-vs- Digambar [(1995) 4 SCC 683], which reads as follows:-
“16. .... Sometimes, as it was stated on behalf of the State, the
State Government may not choose to file appeals against certain
judgments of the High Court rendered in writ petitions when they
are considered as stray cases and not worthwhile invoking the
discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution, for seeking redressal therefor. At other times, it is
also possible for the State, not to file appeals before this Court in
some matters on account of improper advice or negligence or
improper conduct of officers concerned. It is further possible, that
even where SLPs are filed by the State against judgments of the
High Court, such SLPs may not be entertained by this Court in
exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution either because they are considered as individual cases
or because they are considered as cases not involving stakes
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
which may adversely affect the interest of the State. Therefore,
the circumstance of the non-filing of the appeals by the State in
some similar matters or the rejection of some SLPs in limine by
this Court in some other similar matters by itself, in our view,
cannot be held as a bar against the State in filing an SLP or SLPs
in other similar matter/s where it is considered on behalf of the
State that non-filing of such SLP or SLPs and pursuing them is
likely to seriously jeopardise the interest of the State or public
interest.”
In such circumstances, we are unable to subscribe to the views expressed
by the Writ Court and proceed to determine whether the Petitioners were
otherwise entitled to the reliefs sought in their respective Writ Petitions.
16. It must be recapitulated here that it is well settled that disposal
of public property by the State or its instrumentalities partakes the
character of a trust and the methods to be adopted for its disposal must
be fair and transparent providing an opportunity to all the interested
persons to participate in the process and the law in that regard has been
lucidly explicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kasturi Lal
Lakshmi Reddy –vs- State of Jammu & Kashmir [(1980) 4 SCC 1] in
the following words:-
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
“10. …. There is increasing expansion of the magnitude and range
of Governmental functions, as we move closer to the Welfare
State, and the result is that more and more of our wealth consists
of these new forms of property. Some of these forms of wealth
may be in the nature of legal rights but the large majority of them
are in the nature of privileges. The law has however not been slow
to recognise the importance of this new kind of wealth and the
need to protect individual interest in it and with that end in view, it
has developed new forms of protection. Some interests in
Government largess, formerly regarded as privileges, have been
recognised as rights, while others have been given legal protection
not only by forging procedural safeguards but also by confining,
structuring and checking Government discretion in the matter of
grant of such largess. The discretion of the government has been
held to be not unlimited in that the Government cannot give
largess in its arbitrary discretion or as its sweet will or on such
terms as it chooses in its absolute discretion. There are two
limitations imposed by law which structure and control the
discretion of the Government in this behalf. The first is in regard
to the terms on which largess may be granted and the other in
regard to the persons who may be recipients of such largess.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
11. So far as the first limitation is concerned, it flows directly
from the thesis that, unlike a private individual, the State cannot
act as it pleases in the matter of giving largess. Though ordinarily
a private individual would be guided by economic considerations of
self-gain in any action taken by him, it is always open to him
under the law to act contrary to his self-interest or to oblige
another in entering into a contractor dealing with his property. But
the Government is not free lo act as it likes in granting largess
such as awarding a contract or selling or leasing out its property.
Whatever be its activity, the Government is still the Government
and is, subject to restraints inherent in its position in a democratic
society. The constitutional power conferred on the Government
cannot be exercised by it arbitrarily or capriciously or in and
unprincipled manner; it has to be exercised for the public good.
Every activity of the Government has a public element in it and it
must therefore, be informed with reason and guided by public
interest. Every action taken by the Government must be in public
interest; the Government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason
and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated. If the
Government awards a contract or leases out or otherwise deals
with its property or grants any other largess, it would be liable to
be tested for its validity on the touch-stone of reasonableness and
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
public interest and if it fails to satisfy either best, it would be
unconstitutional and invalid….
14. …. It must follow as a necessary corollary from this proposition
that the Government cannot act in a manner which would benefit
a private party at the cost of the State; such an action would be
both unreasonable and contrary to public interest. The
Government, therefore, cannot, for example, give a
contract or sell or lease out its property for a consideration
less than the highest that can be obtained for it, unless of
course there are other considerations which render it
reasonable and in public interest to do so. ….
15. The second limitation on the discretion of the Government
in grant of largess is in regard to the persons to whom such
largess may be granted. It is now well settled as a result of the
decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty –vs-
International Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489]
that the Government is not free like an ordinary individual, in
selecting the recipients for its largess and it cannot choose to deal
with any person it pleases in its absolute and unfettered
discretion. The law is now well established that the Government
need not deal with anyone but if it does so, it must do so fairly
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
without discrimination and without unfair procedure. Where the
Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of
giving jobs or entering into contracts or granting other
forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at
its sweet will and like a private individual, deal with any
person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with
some standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or
irrelevant. The governmental action must not be arbitrary
or capricious, but must be based on some principle which
meets the test of reason and relevance. This rule was
enunciated by the Court as a rule of administrative law and it was
also validated by the Court as an emanation flowing directly from
the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14. ….”
(emphasis supplied)
It would also be relevant to extract the legal position from the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jagdish Mandal -vs- State of
Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517], which reads as follows:-
“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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
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:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
(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. Cases involving blacklisting or
imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or
distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of
licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing
as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Meerut Development Authority
-vs- Association of Management Studies [(2009) 6 SCC 171]
considered as to what is the nature of the rights of a bidder participating
in the tender process and held as follows:-
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
“26. A tender is an offer. It is something which invites and is
communicated to notify acceptance. Broadly stated it must be
unconditional; must be in the proper form, the person by whom
tender is made must be able to and willing to perform his
obligations. The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open
to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm
of contract. However, a limited judicial review may be available in
cases where it is established that the terms of the invitation to
tender were so tailor-made to suit the convenience of any
particular person with a view to eliminate all others from
participating in the bidding process.
27. The bidders participating in the tender process have no
other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the
matter of evaluation of competitive bids offered by interested
persons in response to notice inviting tenders in a transparent
manner and free from hidden agenda. One cannot challenge the
terms and conditions of the tender except on the abovestated
ground, the reason being the terms of the invitation to tender are
in the realm of the contract. No bidder is entitled as a matter of
right to insist the authority inviting tenders to enter into further
negotiations unless the terms and conditions of notice so provided
for such negotiations.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
28. It is so well settled in law and needs no restatement at our
hands that disposal of the public property by the State or its
instrumentalities partakes the character of a trust. The methods to
be adopted for disposal of public property must be fair and
transparent providing an opportunity to all the interested persons
to participate in the process.
29. The Authority has the right not to accept the highest bid
and even to prefer a tender other than the highest bidder, if there
exist good and sufficient reasons, such as, the highest bid not
representing the market price but there cannot be any doubt that
the Authority's action in accepting or refusing the bid must be free
from arbitrariness or favouritism.”
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Michigan Rubber (India)
Limited -vs- State of Karnataka [(2012) 8 SCC 216], after referring to
earlier decisions, has laid down the law relating to interference of the
Constitutional Courts in contractual matters 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
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 the 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 the
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
a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.”
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
While reiterating the limited scope of judicial review in matters of relating
to the award of contracts by the State and its instrumentalities, it has
been observed in Maa Binda Express Carrier -vs- North-East
Frontier Railway [(2014) 3 SCC 760] as follows:-
“8. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of
contracts by the State and its instrumentalities is settled by a long
line of decisions of this Court. While these decisions clearly
recognise 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 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
Again, in Bharat Coking Coal Limited -vs- AMR Dev Prabha [(2020)
16 SCC 759] the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has restated the legal
position on the maintainability of Writ Petition in interfering with the
award of tender contracts by the State as follows:-
“28. The scope of judicial review in tenders has been explored
in-depth in a catena of cases. It is settled that constitutional
courts are concerned only with lawfulness of a decision, and not
its soundness. [Central Coalfields Ltd. -vs- SLL-SML (Joint
Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622 : (2016) 4 SCC (Civ)
106; Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & Siemens Ltd. -vs-
DMRC, (2014) 11 SCC 288]. Phrased differently, the courts
ought not to sit in appeal over decisions of executive authorities
or instrumentalities. Plausible decisions need not be overturned,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
and latitude ought to be granted to the State in exercise of
executive power so that the constitutional separation of powers is
not encroached upon. [Air India Ltd. -vs- Cochin
International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617]. However,
allegations of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
would be enough grounds for courts to assume jurisdiction and
remedy such ills. This is especially true given our unique
domestic circumstances, which have demonstrated the need for
judicial intervention numerous times. Hence, it would only be the
decision-making process which would be the subject of judicial
enquiry, and not the end result (save as may be necessary to
guide determination of the former).
29. This position of law has been succinctly summed up in
Tata Cellular -vs- Union of India [Tata Cellular -vs- Union
of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] , where it was famously opined
that: (SCC pp. 677-78, para 77)
“77. … Therefore, it is not for the court to determine
whether a particular policy or particular decision
taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is
only concerned with the manner in which those
decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty
to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
put, the grounds upon which an administrative
action is subject to control by judicial review can
be classified as under:
(i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must
understand correctly the law that regulates his
decision-making power and must give effect to it.
(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury [Associated
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. -vs-
Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 (CA)]
unreasonableness.
(iii) Procedural impropriety.”
30. But merely because the accusations made are against the
State or its instrumentalities does not mean that an aggrieved
person can bypass established civil adjudicatory processes and
directly seek writ relief. In determining whether to exercise
their discretion, the writ courts ought not only confine
themselves to the identity of the opposite party but also to
the nature of the dispute and of the relief prayed for.
Thus, although every wrong has a remedy, depending
upon the nature of the wrong there would be different
forums for redress.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
31. In cases where a constitutional right is infringed, writs
would ordinarily be the appropriate remedy. In tender matters,
such can be either when a party seeks to hold the State to its
duty of treating all persons equally or prohibit it from acting
arbitrarily; or when executive actions or legislative instruments
are challenged for being in contravention to the freedom of
carrying on trade and commerce. However, writs are
impermissible when the allegation is solely with regard to
violation of a contractual right or duty. Hence, the persons
seeking writ relief must also actively satisfy the Court that
the right it is seeking is one in public law, and not merely
contractual. In doing so, a balance is maintained between
the need for commercial freedom and the very real
possibility of collusion, illegality and squandering of public
resources.
....
33. Such conscious restraint is also necessary because judicial
intervention by itself has effects of time and money, which if
unchecked would have problematic ramifications on the State's
ability to enter into contracts and trade with private entities.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
Further, it is not desirable or practicable for courts to review the
thousands of contracts entered into by executive authorities
every day. Courts also must be cognizant that often-a-times the
private interest of a few can clash with public interest of the
masses, and hence a requirement to demonstrate effect on
“public interest” has been evolved by this Court. [Jagdish
Mandal -vs- State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517, para 22].
34. It is thus imperative that in addition to arbitrariness,
illegality or discrimination under Article 14 or encroachment of
freedom under Article 19(1)(g), public interest too is
demonstrated before remedy is sought. Although the
threshold for the latter need not be high, but it is nevertheless
essential to prevent bypassing of civil courts and use of
constitutional avenues for enforcement of contractual
obligations.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. Having due regard to the aforesaid legal principles, the validity
of Clauses (1) to (6) of the said Circular No. A3/19/2014 dated
22.07.2014 issued by the Managing Director of TASMAC would have to be
examined. As already noticed, the validity of the Circular No. A3/19/2014
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
dated 22.07.2014 issued by the Managing Director of TASMAC has been
upheld by this Court also in G.Sakthivel -vs- Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Chennai (Order
dated 28.03.2018 in W.P. (MD) No. 1519 of 2018). It is beyond any pale
of doubt from Clauses (1) to (6) of the Circular No. A3/19/2014 dated
22.07.2014 that they intend to safeguard the financial interests of
TASMAC. Prudence expects of a participant in the tender to be vigilant
enough to inspect the premises and satisfy himself about the availability
of place and its suitability for running of the relevant bar attached to the
respective shops before submitting his bid. In that process, the tenderer
would have to necessarily communicate with the owner of the proposed
premises to grant him lease for the Bar in the event he turns out to be the
successful bidder. In all probability, there may be only one place attached
to the existing shop in the same building for running the eating house and
collection of bottles satisfying the requirements of Rules 9-B and 10 of the
Rules. This would obviously mean that all the tenderers for a particular
Bar cannot be expected to simultaneously obtain consent / no objection
certificate from the owner of the premises before submitting their bid in
the tender. As it is only the successful bidder who would be running the
eating house with facility of bar, TASMAC has rightly imposed the
condition that though the tender applicant need not enclose 'no objection
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
certificate' from the owner of the bar premises at the time of submitting
his tender, the highest bidder would have to furnish the rental agreement
entered with the bar premises owner within seven days from the time of
intimation of his selection after evaluation of the bid. In the event of his
failure to produce that essential document, the second highest bidder
would be called upon to produce such rental agreement with the owner of
the bar premises at the offered / bid price of the highest bidder. If the
bidders did not produce such rental agreement from the owner of the bar
premises, they would obviously forfeit their Earnest Money Deposit, which
is adequate to recompense TASMAC for the expenditure incurred in
conducting the tender and to take up re-tender process. The said
procedure is certainly in public interest to safeguard the financial interests
of TASMAC and in consonance with the mandate of Article 14 of the
Constitution viz-a-viz the rights of the participants in the tender in the
light of the principles laid down in the binding judicial pronouncements
governing the controversy involved.
18. The claim of the Petitioners in the Writ Petitions that TASMAC
must insist that before submitting his bid in the tender, the participant
must also obtain the consent / no objection certificate from the owner of
the bar premises, is fraught with oblique motives. It would be unrealistic
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
to expect the owner of the bar premises to grant such consent / 'no
objection certificate' in writing to all potential tenderers of such bar before
they submit their bid. If such claim as made by the Petitioners is
accepted, it would lead to an anomalous situation where participation in
the tender would be confined only to the existing lessee or owner of the
bar premises and all other persons willing to make a higher bid than them
would be prevented from participating in that tender, which would militate
against public interest defeating the purpose of TASMAC granting the
privilege to private individuals to run bars attached to its shops at
competitive price to augment its income leading to formation of cartel,
which cannot be countenanced.
19. It is needless to add here that if there are any practical
difficulties in carrying out the aforesaid procedure, it would be certainly
open to TASMAC to suitably modify the same, but such possibility cannot
be a reason for this Court, in the limited exercise of its powers of judicial
review of the decision making process, to substitute the decision itself
merely because some other better option is available in its perception.
20. It must also be placed on record here that during the course of
hearing, it has been represented before this Court that there would not be
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
any condition banning / blacklisting the successful bidders who have failed
to produce lease agreement from the owner of the bar premises in
participating in future tenders, and the Managing Director, TASMAC has
filed an affidavit dated 25.07.2023 to that effect. It would also be
incumbent upon TASMAC to ensure transparency by video recording of
the entire tender process followed in awarding the tender contract.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned common
order dated 30.09.2022 in W.P. No. 21391 of 2022 etc., batch passed by
the Writ Court, which cannot be sustained, is set aside and the Writ
Petitions shall stand dismissed. Since the period of the impugned tender
from September 2022 to October 2023 would lapse shortly, it may not be
appropriate to proceed with the impugned tender notification and TASMAC
shall be at liberty to issue fresh tender for future periods following the
prescribed procedure in accordance with law.
In the upshot, the Writ Appeals are allowed on the aforesaid
terms. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 14415 to 14430, 14432, 14433, 14435,
14436, 14438, 14440, 14442, 14443, 14445 to 14456, 14458 to 14460,
14462 to 14471, 14473 to 14507, 14509 to 14511, 14513, 14514, 14516
to 14531, 14533 to 14545, 14547 to 14552, 14554 to 14570, 14572 to
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
14575, 14580, 14582, 14599, 14600, 14616 to 14798 of 2023 are
closed. There will be no order as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
05.09.2023
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
vjt
To:
1. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited,
Thalamuthu Natarajar Maligai, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
2. The District Manager/Sub-Collector,
TASMAC Limited, Thiruvallur (East) District,
No. 1, Bangalore High Road,
Sembarambakkam, Chennai – 600 123.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
vjt
W.A. No. 374 of 2023 etc., batch
05.09.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
