LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-62

P. JAGANATHAN Vs. SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On February 08, 2013
P. JAGANATHAN Appellant
V/S
SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition came to be posted on being specially ordered by the order of the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, dated 18.01.2013.

(2.) HEARD the arguments of Mr.Aditya Shivkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.L.P.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.S.Elambarathi, learned counsel for third respondent, Mr.P.Rajkumar Pandian, learned counsel for 5th respondent, Mr.E.Jeeva, learned counsel for 7th respondent and Mr.S.Patel, learned counsel for the 8th respondent.

(3.) THE petitioner had participated in the tender floated by the second respondent, i.e., Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, for the purchase of 35 lakhs of table top wet grinders. He became one of the 24 eligible and qualified tenderers. On 15.6.2012, there was a pre-bid meeting that took place at the office of the second respondent. At the pre-bid meeting, one of the question posed to the second respondent was whether the excise duty could be calculated on the MRP of the product. The response to the query by the second respondent was that the tender falls under the "Priceless Wet Grinder Scheme" and once cannot calculate the MRP of this product. The excise duty should be calculated on the basic cost of the product. He also stated that any participant who calculates excise duty on the MRP is liable to be disqualified from the tender process. The tender was opened on 30.8.2012 and all the 24 tenders were opened by the second respondent and prices were disclosed and displayed on projector screens. All the 24 tenderers were asked to reassemble at 4.00 p.m. for an evaluation meeting. But after the prices were displayed on the projector screen, a few of the tenderers felt that something was amiss in relation to the price quoted by L-1 (third respondent). The breakup figure quoted by the third respondent was basic cost Rs.1874.02, excise duty Rs.172.65 and TNVAT Rs.102.33 and total Rs.2149.00. Subsequently, a written representation was given by L-2 to L-24 explaining the mistake in calculation of excise duty by L-1.