SRIRAM Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner states that the first respondent - temple issued a notification inviting tenders / public auction to be held on 14.05.2010 relating to vending of Prasadams in the temple for the period from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011. It is stated in the tender notification that the last date for receipt of tender documents was 14.05.2010 at 04.00 p.m. and the tender box will be kept open in the temple office from 10.00 a.m. on 13.05.2010. The tender box will be opened at 04.00 p.m on 14.05.2010 in the temple premises. Public auction is also contemplated. Duly filled tender forms should be deposited in the tender box in a sealed cover. It is further stated that the tenderers should deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the first respondent - temple, along with the tender form. It is also stated in the tender notification that the persons, who did not offer their tender, could participate in the public auction, by depositing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.

(2.) The petitioner further states that when the tender box was opened, it was found that six persons, including the petitioner, submitted tender forms. Only one person was therefor public auction by remitting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Nobody else was there to participate in the public auction. The petitioner quoted a sum of Rs.12.75 Lakhs, besides complying with the condition by enclosing a demand draft for Rs.1,00,000/- along with his tender form. In these circumstances, the petitioner was the highest bidder.

(3.) The petitioner states that though he was prepared to remit the tender amount of Rs.12.75 Lakhs, which was quoted in his tender form, the person, who is now running the Prasadam Stall, created a turbulent situation, since he came to know that he was an unsuccessful bidder. He unleashed violence and attacked the petitioner, one Thiru Raja, Thiru Jagadish and Thiru Mohan. Therefore, he went to the E-1 Mylapore Police Station and gave a complaint on 14.05.2010 (the same day) at 10.00 p.m, complaining that he was prevented from remitting the tender amount by some rowdy elements. The said complaint was registered in 181/CSR/E1/2010. He also sent a telegram at 11.00 p.m. on the same day itself, requesting the first respondent to give the account number of the temple, so as to remit the tender amount immediately in the bank.