QUALITY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. TAMIL NADU TEXTBOOK AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dtd. 16/3/2023 made in W.P.No.7276 of 2023, in and by which, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the tender floated by the respondents bearing Ref.RC No.613/PUR-1/2023 inasmuch as it prescribed Criteria III (3), (4) and (5).

(2.) The gist of the grievance of the petitioner in the Writ Petition is that for the first time, the respondents are inviting tenders to provide housekeeping, sanitation, and security services in all the schools run under the School Education Department in the State of Tamil Nadu. For the purpose of inviting tender, for the reasons best known to the respondents, they have divided the 38 districts into four zones and are inviting tenders. The tender documents prescribe detailed eligibility criteria, inter alia, the following conditions were made:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_120_LAWS(MAD)4_2023_1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) All that the respondents want is that the successful bidders should do the housekeeping i.e., cleaning the schools including the toilets and keeping the premises clean and providing security services at the gate. It is very much a doable job for any entrepreneur or organisation which can provide these services. But, however, the respondents without any basis whatsoever have included the said criteria which will exclude 99.9% of the intending bidders. Thus, virtually excluding competition and making it monopolistic to one or two giants alone who are already in the business, is opposite to rule of law. The purpose of floating tenders or framing tender conditions should only be in public interest and in the instant case, they are anathema to public interest. The petitioner also would compare the exercise done by the State of Tamil Nadu in respect of the Hospitals. As a matter of fact, the Hospitals require more cleaning, more sanitising and more security. The petitioner also relied upon the following comparative statement to bring home their point that the impugned criteria are absolutely without any basis and designed to keep only a handful alone. <IMG>JUDGEMENT_120_LAWS(MAD)4_2023_2.jpg</IMG>