MRS. SHEELA SELWYN Vs. CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CHENNAI AND THE MANAGER, PURCHASE DIVISION, MATERIALS DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order.

(2.) The petitioners are owners of water tankers. The only grievance of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 4782, 5641 and 5691/2002 is that certain conditions in Tender Schedule, namely, the description as to fixing the model of the vehicle as 1995 and condition No.13 under the heading 'Damage' are unsustainable. The claim of the petitioner in W.P. No. 5040 of 2002 is that the action of the respondent giving preference to the existing contractors, operating with vehicles of 16 years and above model in the tender is arbitrary.

(3.) For convenience, I shall refer the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 4782 of 2002. According to her, she possesses a water tanker with Registration No. TN 09D 8269 of the year 1993 which is fit for transportation of water. She has valid goods carriage permit and fitness certificate. Her vehicle has been hired by the respondents for transportation of water for the previous years. For the year 2002 -2003 a public notification was published in Tamil Daily 'Dhina Boomi' dated 14 -1 -2002 wherein the respondents called for Tenders in Tender No. OT -07 -2002 dated 11 -1 -2002. For the first time, the respondents while giving the description of vehicle have imposed a condition that lorries of 1995 and above model alone are eligible to participate in this tender and however, lorries prior to 1995 model will be considered as the second choice in case no sufficient lorries of 1995 or above model are available in the descending order of model. Even the vehicle of prior model may be maintained in good condition and vehicle of the later model may be in a bad condition. After inspecting the vehicle and after driving the vehicle as a test drive, Fitness Certificate is given to a vehicle by the Motor Vehicle authorities. Once the authorities exercising power under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules issue Fitness Certificate for the vehicle, that is conclusive proof of the condition of the vehicle. By imposing a condition with regard to model, the respondents are making a mockery of the powers exercised by the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act.