Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, theWrit Petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In respect of the contention that he was not allowed to bepresent at the time of opening the tender, as contended in paragraphNo.8 of the affidavit, it is too late to call for reply from the first respondent giving complete details regarding the absence…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 08.11.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.(MD)No.5554 of 2011 andM.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011P.Alaguvel: Petitioner Vs.
The Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, Dindigul.
Antony: RespondentsPRAYER:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to re-tender -cum- auction proceedings in Se.Ma.Tho. Vi.Order No.13/2011 on the file of the first respondent dated 25.01.2011 and quash the same insofar as item No.2 is concerned and further, direct the first respondent to conduct re-tender cumauction for fishery right in Aathoor Dam, Dindigul District. For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.SenthilFor Respondent No.1: Mr.Pala RamasamyFor Respondent No.2: Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran ORDERThe petitioner was a bidder in the auction held for taking the fishery rights in Aathoor Dam coming under the first respondentMunicipality. It is the case of the petitioner that in the auction held by the first respondent Municipality, the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the postponed auction, as per the averments made in paragraph No.8 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. He also states that Rule 21(3) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in TendersRules, 2000, was not followed, inasmuch as the tender was not opened in the presence of the tenderers or representatives of the tenderers. 2. It is further stated that the auction notice dated 26.01.2011was published in "Malaimalar" daily on 26.01.2011 and the rule specified in Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000 was also not followed. It is in that premises, the Writ Petition came to be filed and the same was admitted on 06.06.2011. Pending the Writ Petition, in the application for interim stay, only notice was ordered.
When the matter came up today, Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Municipality informed that the second respondent has become the successful bidder and he has been given the fishery right in Aathoor Dam coming under the jurisdiction of the firstrespondent-Municipality. He has also filed a counter-affidavit sworn toby the Commissioner dated 14.06.2011. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that auction for getting fishery right in Aathoor Dam was fixed on 07.01.2011 and since the Commissioner has to attend some Court work, it could not be conducted on the same day and it was postponed to25.01.2011 and even on that day, due to administrative reasons, it was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2not conducted and hence, it was further postponed to 03.02.2011 and on the said day, three persons were participated viz., the petitioner, the second respondent and one T.Selvam. Though the second respondent initially offered only Rs.9,00,000/-, but on 03.02.2011, he improved his offer by increasing Rs.12,00,501/-, whereas the original offer made by the petitioner was only Rs.10,51,000/- and since the second respondent was the highest bidder in the tender -cum- auction, he was given the fishery rights. The other allegation made by the petitioner was also denied.
Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that Rule relating to conducting of tender which was allegedly infringed by the first respondent is concerned, the matter is covered by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and under Section 11, the Act provides for an appeal to the appellate authority, viz., the StateGovernment and the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal, in case of any infringement of rules. The petitioner, having not done so, cannot knock at the door of this Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India.
Insofar as the contention with reference to not satisfying Rule20 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 in the matter of advertisement of the tender is concerned, such an objection is not open to the petitioner, since he has participated by his own offer and, therefore, he cannot complain of lack of notice and any Notice InvitingTenders, viz., NIT (for short). It is the person who objects to the legality or illegality of the said condition, must approach the Courtbefore his participation in the tender process.
Operative part
In respect of the contention that he was not allowed to bepresent at the time of opening the tender, as contended in paragraphNo.8 of the affidavit, it is too late to call for reply from the first respondent giving complete details regarding the absence of the petitioner. Such allegations cannot be entertained, so as to nullify the final decision taken by the first respondent. This Court is not satisfied with the allegations made by the petitioner and hence, thereis no case made out to interfere with the tender process. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (RTI)/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar To The Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, Dindigul. +1 CC to Mr.M.P.Senthil, Advocate (SR.No.38455) +1 CC to Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, Advocate (SR.No.38462)Order made inW.P.(MD)No.5554 of 2011 Dated:- 08.11.2011SMLNSV/18.11.11/2P/4C
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, theWrit Petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Tenders Act, 1998; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.