M PRASANA Vs. DISTRICT MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was earlier a licensee under the first respondent to run a TASMAC bar in shop No.7515 at Karaikudi Town for the period 2007-08. Now a tender notification has been issued to run the bar attached to the TASMAC shop with a specific condition that tender application would be rejected if it is submitted without obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from the owner of the building.

(2.) The petitioner would contend that the said condition imposed in the tender notification is illegal, as it would create monopoly in the trade. Further only an existing licensee alone would be benefited, if such condition is enforced. The right to participate in the tender process has been taken away on account of imposition of such condition, it is further submitted.

(3.) The first respondent/the District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter called "TASMAC"), Sivagangai District would contend in the counter that the petitioner in fact received the tender form on 27.04.2010, but unfortunately on the very same day the petitioner moved the writ petition and obtained an order of stay against the tender notification dated 27.04.2010 issued by the first respondent. It is true that one of the main conditions imposed in the tender notification is that the tender application will be rejected if it is submitted without obtaining 'No Objection Certificate from the owner of the building. It is to be noted that it has not been insisted that building owner shall issue 'No Objection Certificate' only to one person. The petitioner had come before this Court after submitting the tender application. The first respondent would further contend that imposing of such condition is neither arbitrary nor mala fide. Only as per the Rule, the tender notification has been issued by the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent prays for the dismissal of the writ petition.