BUSINESS LEADER Vs. CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) PRAYING to forbear the respondents from terminating the contract viz. Collection of vehicle parking fee from vehicles parked at parking space including parking space available in double level basement in Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminus at Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107 pending finalization of the tender process as per the tender notice dated 22.11.2010, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

(3.) MR.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the petitioner has got the right of lease for the past 9 years from 14.11.2002 with acceptable terms and conditions and the said lease has been periodically extended and it came to an end on 31.05.2011 and due to the litigation initiated at the instance of another Contractor, by name, PCLT, the new tender could not be finalised. Therefore, the respondents extended the lease in favour of the petitioner till 31.07.2011 or till the disposal of the cases pending before this court, whichever is earlier, as per their communication dated 20.05.2011. He would argue that since the litigations initiated by the other Contractor are not over and as the respondents have not taken any steps to adjudicate the matter, the petitioner has got the right to continue the lease till the litigations are over, as per the conditions stipulated. 5a. It is his further contention that even during the period of lease, the respondents have started to invite tender and stipulated the last date for submission of tender as 10.12.2010. The petitioner and two other tenderers, namely, Kumutha Travels and PCLT have been technically qualified among the six tenderers who participated in the tender process and by a communication dated 25.01.2011, the 2nd respondent called upon the technically qualified three tenderers for a meeting to open the price bid on 28.01.2011 in the presence of the Tender Committee members. However, the tender was postponed due to administrative reasons. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, in the given circumstances, there is no other option for the respondents except to allow the petitioner to continue with the lease. In support of his case, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the following Supreme Court decisions: (i) AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2361 (State Bank of India & another vs. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.)