M/S GREEN EARTH REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR V RAVI PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND CHAIRMAN COIMBATORE & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first Respondent in No. Dr. VI/CSRC-RMD/NADP/Mini Portable Sprinkler/Cancellation of Tender/2010, dated 31.12.2010 and the consequential re-tender notification dated 31.12.2010 published in Thina Mani dated 02.01.2011 and consequently direct the Respondents to place supply orders to the Petitioner for the supply of 100 numbers of mini portable sprinkler irrigation system pursuant to the approval of contract by the second Respondent in ASP&H/CSRC/KVK/RMD/NADP/Mini Portable Sprinkler/Performance Security-Contract Agreement/2010, dated 19.10.2010 and the contract agreement executed on 10.12.2010 between the Petitioner and the second Respondent.

(2.) According to the Petitioner, the company was established in the year1996 involved in manufacture and sale of manual operated traveling sprinkler otherwise known as Mini Mobiles Sprinkler which will be otherwise called Portable Traveling Sprinkler Irrigation System. The said product is the new innovation and has become popular among farmers particularly in Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. The first Respondent has called for sealed tenders for supply of 100 Mini Portable Sprinklers with accessories under two cover system (technical and price). Last date and time for receipt of bids was scheduled to behold on 16.08.2010 at 03.00 p.m. The date and time for opening of technical bid was scheduled to be held on 16.08.2010 at 03.30 p.m. at the office of the first Respondent. The price bid was opened on 18.08.2010 and the first Respondent by letter dated 02.09.2010 requested the Petitioner to appear before the Technical Committee for price bid negotiation on 06.09.2010. Pursuant to the satisfaction of technical bid and price, the second Respondent vide letter dated 19.10.2010 awarded the tender to the Petitioner and a contract of agreement has been entered into between the Petitioner and the second Respondent to that effect on 10.11.2010. That being so, the first Respondent has issued the impugned order 31.12.2010, canceling the tender awarded in favour of the Petitioner and causing publication of the re-tender notification, dated 31.12.2010, which is not sustainable in law.

(3.) Respondents have filed a counter stating that the duty of the Respondents is to supply standard equipments to meet the purpose for which the sprinkler is intended to be used by the farmers and hence the responsibility of the Respondents is to identify the correct and quality product. Inasmuch as the Petitioner was not ready to supply the machines as per the specifications, the Respondents were forced to cancel the tender in public interest. Since the Respondents have followed the procedure as per the norms prescribed in the tender conditions, there is no deviation on their part to issue fresh tender notification. The writ Petitioner cannot fetter the Respondents with his inferior quality of machines, which do not meet the specifications. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.