K.K.P. VIJAYAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the successful bidder of the tender conducted in respect of two-wheeler parking in the bus stand campus, Tuticorin Corporation for the period from 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2022, but was not given the award and the consequential licence. The petitioner also was a licence holder from the period between 2016-2019, having been the successful bidder for the tender floated by the Tuticorin Corporation. The said licence period expired on 31.03.2019 and subsequently, the respondent had extended the same on 29.03.2019 in proceedings A16/004741/2015 by directing the petitioner to pay additional charges for the extended period of four months. Accordingly, the lease period was extended till 01.08.2019. The said cycle stand also has CCTV coverage and there is also manual patrolling. While so, the respondent had invited tender in Na.Ka.No.A16/0029/2018 by publishing it in a vernacular daily and fixing the date of tender as 15.07.2019. The tender notification contains 16 items of tender particulars, including deposit amount, additional deposit amount etc. The petitioner also had participated by making pre deposit amount of Rs.1,30,000/- as required in the tender notification. On 15.07.2019, on the date fixed for the tender opening, the petitioner was present in the office of the respondent. There are only totally two persons viz., S.Murugavel and the petitioner himself, who had participated in the auction for the tender of the two wheeler parking in the new bus stand campus of the respondent Corporation. The said Murugavel had offered Rs.5,25,000/- whereas, the petitioner herein had offered Rs.8,24,950/-. As the petitioner offered highest amount, he was declared as successful bidder in the said auction. As per the tender condition, the successful bidder has to pay the auction amount within a period of seven days from the date of tender. Accordingly, the petitioner, being the successful bidder, approached the respondent in-person for payment of the entire auction amount. However, the respondent did not receive the amount or give proper response to the petitioner. Hence, on 01.08.2019, the petitioner submitted a grievance petition requesting the authorities to issue him a certificate of licence as a successful bidder to the tender auction. However, there was no response for the same. Hence, the petitioner has moved this Court, seeking a mandamus, directing the respondent to issue the licence in his favour.

(2.) The case of the petitioner was opposed by the respondent stating that on the date of auction, the said Murugavel alone was present and the petitioner did not participate. However, it is admitted that the petitioner was the highest offeror by quoting Rs.8,24,958/-. As there was only a sole bidder, auction could not be validly completed and final decision could not be taken by the respondent.

(3.) However, it is further contended by the respondent that the offer made by the said Murugavel was below the amount as expected by the Corporation, which was at least Rs.10 lakhs and as he was not keen to take the cycle stand licence in the new bus stand, the tender process was dropped according to the powers vested with the Commissioner coupled with the general condition of tenders attached to Tuticorin Corporation. The respondent also relied on Condition No.10 of the tender notice, which is as follows: