THE HONOURABLE MR v. The Commissioner The Block Development Officer Panchayat Union Sholavaram Tiruvellore District2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23-04-2007CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A. KULASEKARANW.P. No. 13809 of 2007andM.P. No. 1 of 2007-o-K. KrishnanProprietorM/s. Ambal Traders19/8, Aziz Mulk 5th StreetThousand LightsChennai – 600 006.. PetitionerVersus1. The Commissioner The Block Development Officer Panchayat Union Sholavaram Tiruvellore District2. The Project Officer Directorate of Rural Development Authority Thiruvellore District3. M/s. Usha International No.89, Mount Poonamallee High Road Ramavaram Chennai – 600 089.. RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution ofIndia praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as statedtherein.For Petitioner :Mr. K.J. RebellaFor Respondents:Mr. I. ParanthamenGovernment Advocate for RR1 & 2ORDERThis writ petition is listed today for admission and Iheard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as thelearned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the firstrespondent in letter vide Rc.No.1701/2006 A2/ dated 29.03.2007and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequentlydirect the first respondent to issue the Order in favour of thepetitioner for supply of 136 sewing machines at the rate ofRs.4,940/- as quoted by the petitioner against Tender No.SGRY-I-2006-07 (DP & BP).3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmitted that the petitioner has participated in the tenderinvited by the first respondent for supply of 136 sewingmachines and quoted Rs.4,940/- per machine, whereas, the thirdrespondent herein quoted Rs.5,877/- per machine, which wasaccepted by the first respondent; that the first respondent haspassed non-speaking order and rejected his tender and prayed forquashing of the same.4.Mr. Paranthamen, learned Government Advocate appearingfor the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the first respondentcalled for tenders on 15.03.2007 in which one N.R. Velayudarajahad quoted Rs.5,690/-, M/s. Usha International, the thirdrespondent quoted Rs.5,877/- and the petitioner has offered atRs.4,940/- and they were directed to display their samples, butthe said Velayudaraja has not turned up, hence, the tendersubmitted by him was rejected; that in so far as the petitioneris concerned, though he has quoted lesser rate than the thirdrespondent, the model displayed by him was inferior in qualityand the same was found to have not been sold in the market, itis not having ISI mark, besides that the spares and servicefacilities for the said model is not available; that the Sunmicatable provided is not of good quality and also the bottom castiron stand is not having brand name, which is nothing but alocal brand, hence, the petitioner's tender was rejected; thatthe third respondent produced ISI mark brand sewing machines andtheir service facilities are available in almost all the place,hence, the tender submitted by the third respondent was acceptedand supply order was issued in favour of the third respondent on21.03.2007 and supply was also effected by the third respondenton 30.03.2007 under invoice Nos. 0001138302, 0001138318,0001138316, 0001138317, 0001138319, 000113811, which was laterentered in the stock register maintained by the respondents 1and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5.This Court carefully considered the argument ofcounsel for both sides and perused the material records placed.Of course, in the impugned order dated 29.03.2007, no reason wasassigned by the first respondent for not accepting the tender ofthe petitioner, but simply stated 'not accepted'. In a matterrelating to tender, notwithstanding the lowest amount offered bythe tenderers, it is open to the authority to accept higher ratequoted, but at the same time it is the bounden duty of theauthorities to assign reasons for rejecting lowest rate, but nosuch reason is mentioned. The learned Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted, relying on thewritten instructions that the model displayed by the petitioneris assembled one, not a branded one, not being sold in themarket, the spares and service are not available besides thatthe sunmica table and bottom cast iron stand are local product,hence, they felt it not suitable to supply the same to thedowntrodden. It is further pointed out by the learnedGovernment Advocate that the third respondent has offered ISIbranded machines, which is one of the leading manufacturers inIndia and their service facilities are available in all theplaces, hence, the first respondent rightly accepted the saidoffer. The right to choose cannot be considered to be anarbitrary power. What is paramount is public interest. Evenbefore this Court, the petitioner not even demonstrated thebrand name of his product, experience in the field and servicefacilities provided. Hence, though the impugned order is a non-speaking order, the conclusion arrived at is based on validreasons. Moreover, in this case, the third respondent effectedsupply.6.The power of the High Court can be invoked only forenforcement of fundamental rights or other legal rights orarbitrary exercise of power by the Government bodies. No suchelement is found in this case. In this context, it would berelevant to refer to the order passed by me in WP No. 4769 of2006, which was reported in (A. Soosai Mary vs. SuperintendingEngineer, Public Works Department, Trichy) (2007) 2 MLJ 787wherein I held in Para-9 thus:-" 9.If a tender is given, it is merelyan offer and only if it is acceptedabsolutely, any contract can come intoforce, otherwise, no right flows from suchan offer. The principles of judicial reviewwould apply to the exercise of contractualpowers by the Government bodies in order toprevent arbitrariness or favouritism.Article 14 of the Constitution have to bekept in view when accepting or refusing thetender. However, there can be no questionof infringement of Article 14 of theConstitution of India when the Governmenttries to get the best person or the bestquotation. The right to choose cannot beconsidered to be an arbitrary power. Asregards awarding of contract, what isparamount is public interest. It is open tothe Government to reject even the highestbid at a tender where such rejection is notarbitrary or unreasonable or such rejectionis in public interest and for valid and goodreasons. In this case, no sucharbitrariness was found. " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.Considering the above said facts, this Court issatisfied with the rejection of the tender of the petitioner,hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. The writpetition is dismissed. No costs. Conseuently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed.RshSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Commissioner Panchayat Union Sholavaram Tiruvellore District2. The Project Officer Directorate of Rural Development Authority Thiruvellore District+ one cc to M/S. K.T. Rebella, Advocate sr no. 27232+ one cc to the Government Pleader sr o. 27775klt(co)\nm(07.05.07)WP No. 13809 of 2007