M SARAVANAN Vs. DISTRICT MANAGER TASMAC SURIYAMPALAYAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONS under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the tender notice in Na.Ka.No.090/R.2/2010, dated 20.1.2010, to quash the same and to consequently direct the 1st respondent to call for the re-tender.)the first respondent before 10.00 am. on 3.2.2010 and filled up tender forms should be presented to the first respondent before 5.00 pm. on 3.2.2010.2.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that the said newspapers are not having wide circulation and therefore, there was no chance for more people to participate. IT is stated that only on 1.2.2010 the petitioners came to know about the publication and immediately they visited the office of the first respondent and it is the case of the petitioners that they were not allowed to meet the first respondent by large number of people who indulged in violence. However, it is stated that when the first respondent was contacted, he has informed that forms are available. 2.3. IT is stated that again the petitioners have visited the office of the first respondent on 2.2.2010 and there was again a crowd preventing the entry of the petitioners and thereafter, it is stated that the first respondent has given certain tokens with the seal of the first respondent requesting them to come on the next day and collect the tender forms. IT is stated that on 3.2.2010 at 7.00 am. the petitioners were waiting to meet the first respondent and after 10.00 am. they were informed that the time for collecting the forms is over and it is stated that thereafter, they have made complaints to the Superintendent of Police, the District Collector, and so on.2.4. IT is stated that the tender forms were issued to selected persons and in these circumstances the notification itself is challenged on the ground that it is in violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (for brevity, "the Act') and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 (for brevity, "the Rules") framed thereunder, which contemplate a minimum time of 15 days between the date of publication of the notice inviting tenders and the last date for submission of tenders.2.5. IT is stated that the tenders were opened on 5.2.2010 and by virtue of the order passed in these writ petitions, the confirmation of tender is stayed on 5.2.2010.

(3.) 1. On the other hand, Mr.J. Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondents by producing the files would submit that the petitioners only intend to form a cartel system and it is not correct to state that the first respondent has not issued the tender forms.5.2. It is his contention that in respect of 254 IMFL shops, 488 applications were received and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no wide publicity.5.3. It is his contention that the petitioners having known about the tender notification have filed the present writ petitions only with an ulterior motive and it is his submission that the existing period of lease of the shops in respect of the above said purpose comes to an end by 28.2.2010 and in the absence of any violation of the provisions of the Act, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for.