R.MAHESWARAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the Tender Allotment Order (Minutes of Meeting), dated 28.9.2012 issued by the respondents 2 to 4 and consequential Work Order, dated 6.10.2012 issued by the first respondent in favour of sixth respondent and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to allot the tender and Work Order in the petitioner's favour.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is doing the business of lending machines like JCP, Crane, lorry and Poclain in the name and style as "SRP Earthmovers and Lorry Service" and having the registered office at Sorriyankuppam, Puducherry. On 21.9.2012, the first respondent published Tender Notice in Tamil newspaper, namely, "Dina Malar" inviting sealed quotation rates for excavation of sand mining operation for a period of one year at South Pennaiyar River Bed, Manamedu Revenue Village, Bahour Commune, Puducherry. The condition imposed is that the tenderers should have Poclain Machine model (HITACHI EX-200) and through the said machine only, sand should be excavated. According to the petitioner, the said model machine is not at all available in India and is available only in foreign countries, but in India only equivalent model of EX 200 is available.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, respondents 1 to 4 orally declared that he is the successful tenderer. On 6.10.2012, the Tender Committee rejected the petitioner's tender on the ground that he had quoted in respect of Excavator Machine JCP Ex 200 and not Hitachi Ex 200 and issued work order in favour of the sixth respondent on 6.10.2012, who quoted the price rate of Rs.24.00 for 3 unit (Lorry/Tipper) and Rs.8.00 per unit (Tractor). Having aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the above said prayer, stating that the rejection of tender submitted by the petitioner that he is not having the prescribed Hitachi Ex 200 is equally applicable to the case of the sixth respondent, as he is also not having Hitachi Ex 200. Therefore, the confirmation of tender in favour of the sixth respondent and consequently work order issued to him, is illegal. The petitioner has further prayed for allotting the work to him.