Madras High Court
L.Murugan vs The Managing Director on 2 April, 2024
W.A(MD)No.668 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.04.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESHKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A(MD)No.668 of 2024
and
CMP(MD)Nos.4861 and 4862 of 2024
L.Murugan ... Appellant
vs.
1. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited,
Nandhanam,
Chennai-35.
2. The General Manager,
Marketing,
Tirunelveli District Cooperative Milk Production Union Ltd.,
Reddiyarpatti Road,
Perumalpuram Post,
Tirunelveli-07.
3. The Manager,
Marketing,
Tirunelveli District Cooperative Milk Production Union Ltd.,
Reddiyarpatti Road,
Perumalpuram Post,
Tirunelveli-07. ... Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 12.03.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.5739 of 2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 11
W.A(MD)No.668 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.I.Pinaygash
For Respondents : Mr.J.Devasenan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESHKUMAR, J.)
This appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ
Court dated 12.03.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.5739 of 2024.
2. The appellant/petitioner claimed to have been the vendor of milk
which are being supplied by the 3rd respondent namely, Tirunelveli District
Cooperative Milk Production Union Limited. It is also claimed by the
appellant/petitioner that, he had been doing the vending business of milk with
the 3rd respondent for the past 19 years. Though every second year, it should
have been given by calling tender in open auction or tender system, somehow,
the appellant had been continuing for the past 19 years and last such renewal
has been made, for which, a sum of Rs.1,000/- had been received as agent
renewal fee on 27.09.2022, under which, the period covered is from 01.10.2022
to 30.09.2024.
3. Despite the period is covered upto 30.09.2024, the 2nd respondent
had come forward to issue a tender notification dated 22.02.2024 published in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
online, pursuant to the proceedings dated 01.11.2023 issued by the 2 nd
respondent, based on the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 31.10.2023.
Therefore, questioning the same and to seek quashment of the same, the
appellant/petitioner had moved the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.5739 of 2024.
4. The said writ petition having been considered, was rejected by the
Writ Court, by order dated 12.03.2024, as against which only, the present
appeal has been directed.
5. Assailing the said order passed by the Writ Court, Mr.I.Pinaygash,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that, firstly, the
period of agency continues with the appellant/writ petitioner upto 30.09.2024,
for which, renewal fee has already been received by the 3rd respondent on
27.09.2022 and a receipt of which, also has been filed in the typedset of
documents.
6. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that, at least till
30.09.2024, no tender notification should be issued calling tenders from any
third parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Secondly, the learned counsel raised the point that, insofar as The
Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, is concerned, sub-rule (3) to
Rule 11 under the heading, 'Publication of Notice Inviting Tenders in
Newspapers', says that in cases where publication of Tender Inviting Notice is
to be done only in newspapers with circulation within the district, the
Information and Public Relations Officer attached to the District Collectorate
shall be the competent authority to release the advertisement and also such
tender notification should be issued in two daily newspapers one in English and
another one is in vernacular. If these are all the rules called, The Tamil Nadu
Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, in violation of the said rules, without any
paper publication having been made and assuming that if any paper publication
having been made, no such paper publication has been issued in the district,
that means, the paper where the notification issued since does not have any
circulation in the district concerned, such a notification, if any, issued as
claimed by the respondents through the two newspapers, shall not meet the
requirement of Rule 11. Therefore, on that ground also, the tender notification
is liable to be interfered with, he contended.
8. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the
respondents, on instructions, would submit that, the tender notification had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been issued by E-portal also. That apart, it has been published in one Tamil
daily and one English daily. The photocopy of the paper cutting carrying the
said notification published in Tamil and English newspapers had also been
produced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Relying upon
these documents, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that, as
per the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, paper publication
has been given with a tender notification both in English and vernacular daily
and insofar as the point raised by the petitioner that it does not have the
circulation in Tirunelveli District is concerned, it has been issued as a State
Edition. Therefore, the papers since have the circulation throughout the Tamil
Nadu, it will cover the district of Tirunelveli also.
9. With regard to the licencing period which expires only on
30.09.2024 is concerned, the learned counsel would contend that, such a
renewal normally would be given only pending of initiating the process to go
for tender and find out the successful bidder for the further or successive period
to have the vendorship.
10. Merely because the renewal fee has been received quoting a period
to be covered under the renewal fee, it does not give any wholesale right to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant to seek indulgence against the respondents to go for tender process
inviting tender to find out the suitable vendor to whom or in his favour, the
vending licence would be given for the next licencing period.
11. We have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for both sides and also have perused the materials placed
before this Court.
12. In fact, the points raised herein had been raised before the Writ
Court also. The learned Judge having considered the rival submissions made
by both sides, had found that the appellant was appointed as a distributor way
back in April 2005 and he had been carrying on the work of milk distribution
eversince. Though it is true that the receipt dated 27.09.2022 gives an
impression that the agency renewal fee was accepted from the appellant, the
issuance of such receipt by the 2nd respondent will not confer any legal right on
the appellant/petitioner as such. The learned Judge has given further reasoning
that, the respondents are the State Instrumentalities. Therefore, when they
invite tenders and if the appellant/petitioner had been appointed as a Contractor
through a tender and during the subsisting contractual period, a new tender
notice has been issued, the Writ Court will be justified in interfering with the
same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. However, in the present case, the appellant/petitioner had not been
continuing pursuant to the successful bidder in a tender process, but he had
been somehow or other was able to continue from the year 2005
uninterruptedly, for the reasons best known to the respondents.
14. Be that as it may, now the tender process has begun and the
technical bid of the tender will be opened by tomorrow(03.04.2024). At this
juncture, the appellant/petitioner has stated that at least till September 2024, the
period, for which, renewal of licence fee since has been collected by the
respondents, tender process shall not be proceeded to.
15. The said submission made by the appellant/petitioner is liable to be
rejected for the simple reason that the appellant/petitioner is not the successful
bidder to continue his contract period upto September 2024. It is only a
stopgap arrangement that has been made by the respondents where the licence
has been renewed only till alternative arrangement is made, because, the fixed
fee already been made alone had been collected from the appellant/petitioner.
However, if the tender is finalised, the highest bidder alone would be selected
and in whose favour only, the licence will be extended, by which, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents would fetch more income. Therefore, the 3rd respondent though
instrumentality of the State, being a commercial venture, cannot be put under
disadvantageous position, under which, they would be put under loss at the cost
of the 3rd respondent where the appellant/petitioner wants to gain.
16. This kind of unholy demand cannot be accepted by a Court of Law.
This, in fact, has been indicated by the learned Judge in the order dated
12.03.2024, which is impugned herein.
17. Insofar as the alleged violation of Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu
Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, is concerned, the respondent counsel has
produced the copy of the paper publication made in both English as well as
Tamil vernacular and the English daily where the publication had been given is
having the Chennai Edition which will have the circulation throughout Tamil
Nadu. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the paper, in which, such a
notification has been given does not have the circulation in the district
concerned.
18. Moreover, if we look at the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders
Rules, 2000, especially, the language used in sub-rule (3) of Rule 11, that, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cases where publication of tender notice is to be done only in newspapers, that
means, if the tender notice is expected to be done in newspapers, then only, the
procedure that has been contemplated under sub-rule (3) of Rule 11, has to be
scrupulously and strictly followed.
19. In the present case in hand, even though such kind of strict
observance is not required, despite that, the respondents have scrupulously
followed the same by issuing notification in the two newspapers. Therefore, to
that extent also, the ground raised by the appellant/petitioner alleging that, Rule
11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, is violated, also
cannot be countenanced.
20. Therefore, looking from any angle, the appellant/petitioner is not
entitled to stall the tender process which has already begun and it is going to be
opened by tomorrow(03.04.2024). Therefore, at this juncture, no indulgence
can be shown by this Court, of course, for all these reasons stated herein above,
apart from the reasons given by the learned Judge in the impugned order.
21. Hence, the order impugned passed by the learned Judge is to be
sustained. Accordingly, it is sustained. As a sequel, this Writ Appeal fails.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hence, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
02.04.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESHKUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
bala
02.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
