High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.05.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAMW.P.No.6027 of 2007 andM.P.Nos.1 and 4 of 2007M/s. Process ColorRep. By its General Manager, Mr.N.SelvarajOpp. To Town Hall, Banerji RoadCochin, Kerala – 682 018.. Petitioner-Vs.-1. The Secretary for Home Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai2. The Commissioner Department of Excise and Prohibition Government of Tamil Nadu3. Dr. A.K.Agarwal4. M/s. Holostic India Private Limited W-51 Sector – II, Noida District, GouthamBudh Nagar, U.P. 201 301 .. RespondentsPRAYER:-Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying forthe issuance of a writ of declaration to declare the award of the contractto manufacture for master origination, manufacture and supply of PolyesterHologram Excise Labels to the Government of Tamil Nadu pursuant to theTender Notification in Ref.No.DIPR/3379/Tenders/06, dated 01.12.2006 madein favour of the fourth respondent without opening and considering theprice bid of the petitioner is unconstitutional and illegal. (Amendedprayer as per order dated 28.03.2007 passed by this Court in M.P.No.3 of2007 in W.P.No.6027 of 2007). For Petitioner : Mr. R.Muthukumarasamy, S.C., for Mr. A.Jenasenan For Respondents : Mr. M.Dhandapani, A.G.P., for R-1 & R-2. Mr. Ayyadurai, for R-3. Mr. Vijay Narayan, S.C., for Mr. R.Parthiban, for R-4.O R D E RThe short facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above writpetition are as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ On 01.12.2006, the second respondent issued a tender notificationinviting tender from licensed and reputed manufacturers for masterorigination, manufacture and supply of polyester hologram excise labels asper the specifications described in the tender notice. As per the tendernotification, the last date for submission of tender was 05.01.2007 and thetechnical bids were to be opened at 3.30 pm on the same day. As per thetender conditions only those tenderers who qualify in the technicalevaluation will be considered for price bid opening and the tenderers whodid not qualify in the technical bid will not be considered in the pricebid opening. The tenderers who qualify in the technical bid will beinvited to the opening of the price bid. The said tender consists of fivesections, which are as follows:Section 1 :Tender noticeSection 2 :Instructions to tenderersSection 3 :Technical specifications and product specifications.Section 4 :General terms and conditions.Section 5 :Tender form and price schedule.Section 2 contains the instructions to tenderers, while section 3 dealswith the technical and product specifications. Section 4 of the tendercontains general terms and conditions, while Section 5 deals with thetender form and price schedule.2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted their tenderby complying with all the conditions and specifications within the timeprescribed. The petitioner submitted a representation on 04.01.2007 to thefirst respondent setting out the facts relating to Dr.Agarwal, the thirdrespondent herein, along with a request to see that Dr.Agarwal does notparticipate in the Expert Committee to evaluate the Technical Bids and biasand mala fides have been attributed against the third respondent. The saidrepresentation was followed by another representation dated 11.01.2007.Though the first respondent assured to look into the matter, the thirdrespondent continued to be a member of the committee. According to thepetitioner, out of seven tenders, the tender submitted by M/s. FlexIndustries Limited is incomplete and consequently it is the tender of thepetitioner and the fourth respondent, M/s. Holostic India Private Limited,which would qualify at the technical bid stage and be eligible for theopening of the price bids. The petitioner, on coming to know that theCommittee is visiting the units of the tenderers, by their representationdated 25.01.2007 sought for inspection of the petitioner's unit. Pursuantthereto the Committee visited the petitioner's unit at Cochin alonealthough they fully knew that the full-fledged unit of the petitioner issituated at Coimbatore. According to the petitioner, the officers of thepetitioner's unit had brought to the notice of the Committee that anotherunit of the petitioner, which is under a single roof is situated inCoimbatore which should also be visited by them, but the committee did notvisit the petitioner's unit at Coimbatore. According to the petitioner,the petitioner came to know that the Committee headed by the thirdrespondent had disqualified the petitioner's tender besides four othertenderers also and had certified only the tender of the fourth respondentand M/s. Alfa Laser Tech Private Limited as being technically qualified. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ According to the petitioner, M/s.Holostic India Private Limited and M/s.Alfa Laser Tech Private Limited have formed a cartel along with few otherswhich has also been brought to the notice of the respondents. It isalleged by the petitioner that the action of the respondents in seeking todisqualify the tender of the petitioner at the stage of technical bid isvitiated by bias in fact, bias in law besides being arbitrary andunreasonable violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India only forthe purpose of selecting and continuing the fourth respondent to be themanufacturer and supplier of the Hologram labels for collateralconsiderations.3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by Respondents 1 and 2.In the counter affidavit, the various allegations levelled againstRespondents 1 to 3 by the petitioner have been denied. In paragraph 9 ofthe counter affidavit, the reasons for disqualifying the tender of thepetitioner in the technical bid stage is stated, which reads as follows:-"9. All the facility viz. Art work creation, Master Origination,glass negative preparation, Developing of glass master, Nickellingprocess, Metal master preparation, embossing lamination, Die-cutting, coating and other intermediary processes involved in themanufacture of hologram excise label is not located in the samepremises under one roof (as per Condition No.6 of Part-4 of TenderDocument, 2006). On Inspection it was found that embossing,lamination, die-cutting, coating and re-combination machinerieswere not available in the factory premises. In addition, the DotMatrix origination facility is less than three years. The samplessupplied by the tender do not conform to the prescribedspecifications such as the recombination of holographic mastersmade from both 2D/3D conventional and DOTMATRIX DigitalOrigination System, four channel effect, multilevel animationeffect, pearl effect with hidden micro text, concealed animatedimage and multiple LASER viewable animated covert image" requiredas per the technical specifications in part-3 of Tender document".4. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as per therecommendations of the Tender Scrutiny Committee the price bid forprocurement of Polyester Hologram Excise Labels was opened on 12.02.2007 at11.00 am in the presence of authorised representatives of two technicallyqualified tenderers. The fourth respondent had quoted the lowest price ofRs.0.1661 per hologram label and after negotiations the fourth respondentagreed for substantial reduction in price which was accepted by theDepartment and finally orders have been placed with the fourth respondentfor supply of Polyester Hologram Excise Labels at Rs.0.14375/- per label inthe Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise letter No.P&E10(3)20120/2006dated 14.02.2007. It is further alleged in the counter affidavit that thepetitioner was giving false complaints against the Department based onunfounded assumptions even before the notification for invitation of tenderwas published in the newspapers. It is stated in the counter affidavitthat when the petitioner failed in their attempts to influence the tenderprocess in any way, they started giving false complaints to impeach thecredibility of the tender process as well as of the Officials who areassigned the job of assisting the Government in finalising the tender forprocurement of Hologram labels and the same were examined and found to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not worthy of consideration. According to these respondents, there are sixpersons to evaluate the tenders for opening the price bid and Dr.AnilK.Agarwal is one of the members of the Committee and the Tender ScrutinyCommittee is not headed by Dr. Anil K.Agarwal and no material is availableor placed by the petitioner or anybody to prove that Dr. Anil K.Agarwal isbiased in any manner and he has links with any of the tenderers whoparticipated in the tender. It is stated in the counter affidavit that theTender Scrutiny Committee inspected the factory premises of the tenderersand gave its report in which the tenderers who are not technicallyqualified were not recommended for opening of price bid including that ofM/s. Flex Industries Limited, M/s. Everest Holovision and M/s. GopsonPrivate Limited in addition to the price bid of the petitioner. It isstated in the counter affidavit that Condition No.6 of Part-4 of the tenderdocument makes it very clear that the tenderer should have all thefacilities of Master origination and other production in the same premisesunder one roof. The tenderer who does not have all the facilities in thesame premises will be ineligible to participate in the tender and thetender will be summarily rejected. To ensure that the tenderer has all thefacilities under one roof, the condition number 7 of Part-4 of tenderdocument requires the participating tenderer to submit an affidavit to thiseffect. The petitioner does not have all the facilities under one roof inCochin which was inspected by the Tender Scrutiny Committee as per therequest of the petitioner. As the petitioner do not have all thefacilities under one roof, its tender is to be rejected summarily as perCondition number 6 of Part-4 of tender document. The Technical bid of thepetitioner has been disqualified because the petitioner do not have all thefacilities under one roof as required under Condition No.6 of Part-4 oftender document and the specimen samples submitted by the petitioner do notconform to the technical specifications prescribed in the tender document.It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner seems tohave business rivalry with the fourth respondent due to which he isharbouring illwill against the fourth respondent and no tenderer has beengiven any privilege or any unfair treatment. The entire process offinalisation of tender for procurement of Hologram labels has been donestrictly as per the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and theTamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000. On the above said avermentsand allegations, Respondents 1 and 2 seek dismissal of the above writpetition.5. The third respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit denyingall the allegations of mala fides levelled against him by the petitioner.As the learned senior counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that thepetitioner is not pressing the grounds relating to mala fides levelledagainst the third respondent, the entire averments contained in the counteraffidavit filed by the third respondent is not being reproduced.6. The fourth respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit whichcontains the following averments:-In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, the fourthrespondent has highlighted the necessity to fulfil strictly all therequirements of the tender conditions. The fourth respondent has pointedout in the counter affidavit that in paragraph-2 of the affidavit filed insupport of the above writ petition the petitioner has admitted that many of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his facilities are in Coimbatore but that is in the name of another companyknown as Ignetta Holographic Private Limited which was not one of thetenderers. Therefore, the facilities of Ignetta Holographic PrivateLimited cannot be considered to be the facility of the petitioner.According to the fourth respondent, the petitioner is a firm whereasIgnetta Holographic Private Limited is a Company and therefore it is notclear how a statement has been made in paragraph 2 of the affidavit thatIgnetta Holographic Private Limited is a sister concern of the petitioner.According to the fourth respondent on this ground alone the writ petitionis liable to be dismissed. The allegations of bias, mala fides and thealleged relationship of the third respondent with the fourth respondenthave been denied. According to the fourth respondent, the experienceclaimed by the petitioner is not for production of similar samples asrequired by the Government of Tamil Nadu, since in Kerala, the exerciselabel is a paper label on which a small Hologram is struck whereas in TamilNadu the exercise label is completely Polyester Hologram Excise Label andtherefore the petitioner does not have the experience of manufacturing ofthe similar product. The allegations of forming of a cartel by the fourthrespondent with M/s.Alpha Laser Technology has been denied. According tothe fourth respondent M/s.Ignetta Holographic Private Limited is not one ofthe tenderers and the Coimbatore Unit does not belong to the petitionerherein which fact will show that the petitioner is not having all thefacilities under one roof. On the above said averments, the fourthrespondent seeks for the dismissal of the above writ petition. 7. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner it is stated thatthe Committee which inspected the petitioner's unit at Cochin did notinclude the Financial Controller of the Commissioner of Prohibition andExcise nor Thiru.Venkataraman, Joint Director, Indian Institute ofPackaging and out of six members three members were non-technical persons.Though M/s.Alpha Laser Technology which is closely associated with thefourth respondent did not have the facilities of dot-matrix originationfacility with 4000 DPI graphic resolution, it has been deliberately chosenwith a view to ultimately award the contract to the fourth respondent.According to the petitioner, they have all the facilities under one roof intheir unit at Coimbatore besides major parts of the requirements in theirunit at Cochin. The petitioner had requested the Committee to inspecttheir units at Coimbatore and Cochin, but the Coimbatore unit has beenpurposely not inspected. The reason given in paragraph 9 of the counteraffidavit that the sample supplied by the tenderer did not confirm to theprescribed specification is misconceived incorrect and denied. Theawarding of the contract to the fourth respondent at the price which ismuch higher is not only illegal for the various reasons stated in the writpetition, but also against public interest and public exchequer. Anindependent Committee should be directed to visit the petitioner's unit atCoimbatore as also the unit of M/s.Alpha Laser Technology to examine theirrespective capabilities so as to ascertain whether their productions meetthe specifications. The petitioner made a request to inspect the units atCoimbatore and Cochin, but purposely the Coimbatore unit which had all thefacilities under one roof was not inspected. 8. I have heard Mr. R.Muthukumarasamy learned Senior counsel forMr.A.Jenasenan learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Dhandapanilearned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ V.Ayyadurai learned counsel for Respondent 3 and Mr. Vijay Narayan learnedsenior counsel for Mr. R.Parthiban learned counsel for Respondent 4.9. Mr. R.Muthukumarasamy learned senior counsel for the petitionersubmitted that if the petitioner is able to prima facie show that they hadrequested for inspection of their unit at Coimbatore which according to thepetitioner has got all the facilities under one roof as contemplated inCondition No.6 of Part-4 of Tender Document, 2006, the failure of theCommittee to inspect the Coimbatore unit will vitiate the entire decisionmaking process and on that ground itself the writ petition has to beallowed. 10. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the aboveaspect has to be considered first before taking up the other contentions.In the affidavit dated 04.01.2007 filed by the petitioner in twenty rupeesnon-judicial stamp paper it is averred as follows:-“I, T.M.Rajan, Managing Director, Ignetta Holographic Pvt. Ltd.And Proprietor, Process Color, hereby state that I am inpossession of all the relevant and capable machines in houseand I will not sublet or sub contract any work or a portion ofwork, in connection with the security hologram printing forProhibition and Excise, Chennai, to an outside agency. I alsoconfirm that all the above machines are in my possession andownership and none of these facilities partially or fully willbe sub contracted. All the machines are installed in mypremises under a secured environment.Sd/-... T.M.Rajan Dated this on the 4th of January 2007”In the letter dated 05.01.2007 by the petitioner to the Commissioner,Prohibition and Excise, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005, it is statedas follows:-“LIST OF FAC. LOCATIONHolographyWe have started production of Hologram in the year 2001. We haveholographic production in three locations. The addresses of the3 locations are printed on the bottom of this letter. One inTrivandrum where we make excise labels and other SecurityHolograms for Kerala Government and the other units in Coimbatorein the name of M/s. Ignetta Holographic Pvt. Ltd. We makeSecurity Holograms for other commercial activities for SouthernRegion and Cochin we have mastering facilities conventional andDot matrix and other related Electro forming equipments to caterour both units Trivandrum and Coimbatore. For Tamilnad excisepurpose we will be making master in Cochin unit.We will be providing brand new Holographic equipments forTamilnad Excise as per clause (16) of Part-4 of the Tender. Wehave already placed the order and the machineries are ready fordispatch to Chennai. Copies of the dispatch details are alsoenclosed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ We are providing the photographs of Cochin and Coimbatore unit'smachineries. The Trivandrum unit is almost like Tamilnadu exciselabel printing unit. It is classified as a high security area byState Government. So it is illegal to photograph the premisesand machineries. So we are not enclosing the photographs ofTrivandrum unit.”...“Ignetta Holographic Pvt. Ltd. An ISO 9001 : 2000 Company &Process ColorIgnetta Holographic Pvt. Ltd. and our sister concern ProcessColor both is registered under SSI and Sales Tax in Tamilnadu andKerala. We, Ignetta Holographic Pvt. Ltd. And Process Colorpromoted by T.M.Rajan will be collaborating in the TamilnadTender. In this regard a Board Resolution is also attached”11. In the affidavit submitted by the petitioner in stamp paper he hasnot stated that the petitioner is having all the facilities under one roofat Coimbatore or for that matter in any other place. A reading of theletter dated 05.01.2007 also indicates that the petitioner is not havingall the facilities as contemplated in Condition No.6 of Part-4 of TenderDocument, 2006 at single place under one roof. Admittedly, the unit atCoimbatore is in the name of M/s.Ignetta Holographic Private Limited,whereas the tender has been submitted by the petitioner which is aproprietory concern. Simply because Mr.T.M.Rajan happens to be theManaging Director of M/s.Ignetta Holographic Private Limited and Proprietorof Process Color, the facilities belonging to M/s.Ignetta HolographicPrivate Limited can not be considered to be that of the petitioner. Thematerials available in the original files produced by Respondents 1 and 2clearly show that the petitioner has not requested the Committee to inspectits unit at Coimbatore. Further, the unit at Coimbatore does not belong tothe petitioner who is the tenderer. As rightly contended by Mr.VijayaNarayan learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent when M/s.IgnettaHolographic Private Limited is not one of the tenderers, the facilitiesbelonging to a Private Limited Company cannot be considered to be belongingto the petitioner, which is a proprietory concern, though Mr.T.M.Rajan,proprietor of M/s. Process Color happens to be the Managing Director ofM/s.Ignetta Holographic Private Limited. Mr.Vijaya Narayan learned seniorcounsel for the fourth respondent and Mr. M.Dhandapani learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader for first and second respondents submitted that aperusal of the original files does not indicate that there was any requestby the petitioner to inspect the unit at Coimbatore. It is true that it isaverred in the affidavit that a request was made by the petitioner to theInspection committee to make an inspection of its Coimbatore Unit and suchan averment had not been denied in the counter affidavit but the materialsavailable in the files indicate that no request was made by the petitionerin writing. When admittedly there is no averment in the affidavit of thepetitioner filed in the non-judicial stamp paper which was enclosed withthe tender documents and no written request of the petitioner is availablein the files and when admittedly it is not the case of the petitioner thata written request was made to the inspection committee to visit thepetitioner's unit at Coimbatore, no duty is cast on the inspectioncommittee to visit the Coimbatore Unit. The materials available on recordclearly show that the petitioner is not having all the facilities under oneroof as prescribed by Tender Conditions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. It is pertinent to point out that in the letter dated 05.01.2007it is categorically stated as follows:-“ For Tamilnad excise purpose we will be making master in Cochin unit”Further, the invoices and bills for purchase of machinery stand in the nameof M/s.Ignetta Holographic Private Limited which admittedly is not thetenderer. In the letter dated 05.01.2007 the petitioner has stated thatthey are providing photographs of Cochin and Coimbatore units' machineriesand that itself shows that all the facilities are not available under oneroof. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the above writpetition, the petitioner has admitted that many of its facilities are inCoimbatore but, as pointed out above, the Coimbatore unit is in the name ofa Private Limited Company known as M/s.Ignetta Holographic Private Limited,which admittedly is not one of the tenderers. Therefore, this Court is ofthe considered view that the rejection of the petitioner's tender for notfulfilling the terms of the tender conditions at the stage of evaluation ofthe technical bid cannot be said to be erroneous. Further, the allegedfailure on the part of the Committee to inspect the Coimbatore unit has notvitiated the decision making process and the award of contract in favour ofthe fourth respondent. The learned senior counsel for the fourthrespondent relied upon the following decisions:-(i)2005 (4) S.C.C. 435 (Global Energy Ltd. And another Vs. AdaniExports Ltd. And others).(ii)2005 (6) S.C.C. 138 (Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Metcalfe &Hodgkinson (P) Ltd.In 2005 (4) S.C.C. 435 (referred to supra) in paragraphs 10 and 12 it isobserved as follows:-“10. The principle is, therefore, well settled that the termsof the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutinyand the Courts cannot whittle down the terms of the tender asthey are in the realm of contract unless they are whollyarbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice.12. The fact that M/s. Global Energy Ltd. has a licence ofCategory 'A' and that the said licence is subsisting in itsfavour on the basis of an interim order passed by the HighCourt is not in dispute. Under the Regulations of the CentralElectricity Regulatory Commission, a holder of Category 'F'licence is entitled to trade in over 1000 million units ofpower in a year. The total power intended to be traded by theElectricity Board is 1471 million units for which Appellant 1does not possess the requisite licence. Having regard to thesefacts, we are clearly of the opinion that no ground has beenmade out by the appellants, which may warrant interference bythis Court with the decision taken by the West Bengal StateElectricity Board in not awarding the contract to Appellant 1as price offered cannot be the sole criterion in the matter oftrading of power where holding of relevant licence is mandatoryunder the Regulations of the Central Electricity RegulatoryCommission”.In 2005 (6) S.C.C. 138 (referred to supra) in paragraphs 12 and 15 it isobserved as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "12. After an exhaustive consideration of a large number ofdecisions and standard books on administrative law, the Courtenunciated the principle that the modern trend points tojudicial restraint in administrative action. The Court doesnot sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner inwhich the decision was made. The Court does not have theexpertise to correct the administrative decision. If a reviewof the administrative decision is permitted it will besubstituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise,which itself may be falliable. The Government must havefreedom of contract. In other words, fair play in the jointsis a necessary concomitant for an administrative bodyfunctioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrativesphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by theapplication of Wednesbury principles of reasonableness but alsomust be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias oractuated by mala fides. It was also pointed out that quashingdecisions may impose heavy administrative burden on theadministration and lead to increased and unbudgetedexpenditure. 15. The law relating to award of contract by the State andpublic sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd. Vs.Cochin International Airport Limited (2000 (2) S.C.C. 617) andit was held that the award of a contract, whether by a privateparty or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction.It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it isfree to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if thetender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was furtherheld that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities andagencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned.Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process,the Court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article226 with great caution and should exercise it only infurtherance of public interest and not merely on the making outof a legal point. The Court should always keep the largerpublic interest in mind in order to decide whether itsintervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to aconclusion that overwhelming public interest requiresinterference, the Court should interfere.”13. Basing reliance on the above said two decisions Mr. Vijay Narayanlearned senior counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the Courtcannot whittle down the terms of the tender as they are in the realm of thetender unless they are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated bymalice and he further submitted that the power under Article 226 of theConstitution of India should be exercised only in furtherance of publicinterest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. Learned seniorcounsel further submitted that the price offered by the petitioner cannotbe the sole criterion in the matter of awarding the contract when thepetitioner is not having all the facilities as required by Condition No.6of Part-4 of Tender Document, 2006 under one roof. In the light of the lawlaid down by the Apex Court in the decisions reported in 2005 (4) S.C.C.435 (referred to supra) and 2005 (6) S.C.C. 138 (referred to supra) the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ above said contentions of Mr. Vijay Narayan learned senior counsel for thefourth respondent merits acceptance.14. In this case, the petitioner has not even made out a legal pointto interfere with the award of contract in favour of the fourth respondent.The tender of the petitioner has been rejected not only on the ground thatthe petitioner is not having all the facilities under one roof but also onthe ground that the specimen samples submitted by the petitioner do notconform to the technical specifications prescribed in the tender document.Though the said ground is being contested by the petitioner, this Courtcannot sit as a Court of appeal and review the administrative decision asthis Court do not have the required expertise to correct the administrativedecision. This Court is not having the technical expertise to decide as towhether the decision of the tender scrutiny committee that the specimensamples submitted by the petitioner do not confirm to the technicalspecifications prescribed in the tender document is correct or not. 15. For the above said reasons, this Court is of the considered viewthat the petitioner has not made out a case requiring interference of thisCourt. In the light of the view taken as above, the other contentions putforth by the petitioner does not require any consideration. Accordingly,the above writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, therewill be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsrkTo1. The Secretary for Home Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai2. The Commissioner Department of Excise and Prohibition Government of Tamil Nadu1 cc To Mr.R.Parthiban, Advocate, SR.30106.1 cc To Mr.A.Jenasenan, Advocate, SR.30181.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.30255.W.P.No.6027 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 and 4 of 2007 NTK(CO)RVL 07.05.2007