Madras High Court
K.Gopalakrishnan vs The Union Of India on 12 September, 2023
W.A.No.488 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.488 of 2022
K.Gopalakrishnan .. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Union of India
Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government
of Pondicherry
Chief Secretariat
Pondicherry.
2. The Secretary to Government
Transport Department
Government of Puducherry
Puducherry.
3. The Transport Commissioner
Office of the Transport Commissioner
Transport Department
100 Feet Road
Mudaliarpet
Puducherry 605 004.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.488 of 2022
4. The Tender Evaluation Committee
The Chamber of the Transport Commissioner
Transport Department
Mudaliarpet
Puducherry.
5. M/s. PRR Travels
PRR Illam, No.280, N.Block
26th Street, Anna Nagar East
Chennai 102.
6. M/s. Rainbow Travels
No.500, Bharathi Street
Puducherry 605 001.
7. M/s. Sri Gokul Travels
No.62/3, Puthu Mariamman Koil Street
Ellaipillaichavadi
Puducherry 605 005.
8. R.Sundaramurthy .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 01.02.2022 made in W.P.No.20662 of 2021.
For the Appellant : Mr.B.Balavijayan
For the Respondents : Mr.S.Raveekumar
Government Pleader (Puducherry)
for Respondents 1 to 3
Mr.V.Kamala Kumar
for Respondent-6
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.488 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.B.Balavijayan, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr.S.Raveekumar, learned Government Pleader
(Puducherry) for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.V.Kamalakumar,
learned counsel for the sixth respondent.
2. The appellant had filed a writ petition against the rejection
of the technical bid of the appellant.
3. The e-tender notice was issued for hiring of vehicles for the
use of government departments. The appellant had also bid in the
said tender process. The technical bid of the appellant is rejected.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a writ petition before the
learned Single Judge of this Court bearing W.P.No.20662 of 2021.
The said writ petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.488 of 2022
pendency of an FIR against the appellant would not be a ground to
disqualify the bid of the appellant. Pendency of a criminal case in
itself would not be sufficient to imply that the appellant possesses a
criminal background. The appellant was never blacklisted. The
appellant's financial bid was the lowest. As such, the appellant's
financial bid ought to have been directed to be opened.
5. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Single Judge ought to have considered the matter in its correct
perspective. The appellant was never convicted for any offence. The
FIR lodged against the appellant was in respect of the agitation
organised by the travel operators to show resentment to the road
tax during August 2020. However, the offence was registered
attracting the provisions of Indian Penal Code, Disaster Management
Act and Epidemic Diseases Act. In fact, the appellant was bona
fidely agitating with regard to the road tax in a peaceful manner. By
no stretch, the said act could be construed as the appellant
possessing a criminal background.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.488 of 2022
6. It is not disputed that the tender has already been allotted
to the sixth respondent. It appears that FIR was lodged against the
appellant under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Disaster
Management Act and Epidemic Diseases Act. It is submitted that
subsequently, the said FIR is also quashed.
7. We could have considered the contention of the appellant
had the appellant challenged the said clause of the tender before
participating in the tender process. Once having participated in the
tender process, it is not open for the appellant to assail the said
term of tender.
8. The matter is of a contractual nature. The principal has to
be given some leverage with regard to the terms of the tender. The
principal is the best judge of the terms and conditions to be applied.
9. However, as, according to the appellant, FIR has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.488 of 2022
quashed now, for further tenders, it cannot be construed that the
appellant has a criminal background.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal is disposed
of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.3523
& 3524 of 2023 are closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
12.09.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.488 of 2022
To
1. The Chief Secretary to Government of Pondicherry
Chief Secretariat
Pondicherry.
2. The Secretary to Government
Transport Department
Government of Puducherry
Puducherry.
3. The Transport Commissioner
Office of the Transport Commissioner
Transport Department
100 Feet Road
Mudaliarpet
Puducherry 605 004.
4. The Tender Evaluation Committee
The Chamber of the Transport Commissioner
Transport Department
Mudaliarpet
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.488 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(kpl)
W.A.No.488 of 2022
12.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
