M/S. SUMEET SYNTHETICS, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. S.SHANMUGA PRIYAN, NO.65, CHAIRMAN RATHINASAMY STREET, SHEVAPET, SALEM Vs. DEPARTMENT OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, KURALAGAM, II FLOOR, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the second respondent declaring them as ineligible in respect of opening of Cover B (Price Bid), quash the same and direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to open and consider the Petitioner's Cover B (Price Bid) and thereafter determine the award of the said Tender in accordance with law.

(2.) The petitioner is a trader in cotton yarn, polyster etc., and they submitted their application in response to the tender notification of the second respondent for supply of 60sC Dyed Cotton Warp Yarn for production of Polycot Saress and Dhoties under cost-free distribution of Sarees and Dhoties Scheme Pongal - 2017. As per the tender notification, the tenderer has to supply 2,167 Metric tonne of 60sC Cotton Dyed (Warp quality) yarn. The tender document has to be obtained from the office of the first respondent from 04.07.2016 to 25.07.2016 and the last date for tender was fixed as 25.07.2016 upto 11.am. As per the tender notification, two categories of bidders shall participate in it namely (i) yarn manufacturers with existing contract agreement with cotton yarn dyer and (ii) Yarn traders with existing contract agreement with Cotton yarn manufacturer. The petitioner participated under category 2 and submitted two covers viz., Cover - A (Pre-qualification bid) and Cover B relating to rate bid or price bid by submitting their application on 25.07.2016. A pre-bid meeting was conducted on 14.07.2016 in which the petitioner participated and brought to the notice of the tendering authority that Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) is in practise only in few mills in Tamil Nadu and that in other States, such facility is not in practise. The petitioner thereafter submitted their bids on 25.07.2016. Before opening of the tender, an inspection was conducted on 27.07.2016 and 28.07.2016 by the first respondent to assess the manufacturing unit and dying unit in Gujarat with whom the petitioner had entered into a contract. On 03.08.2016, the petitioner was informed that the Scrutiny Committee has completed the evaluation of bids and the names of the eligible and ineligible bidders for opening of cover B will be announced on 04.08.2016. Accordingly, on 04.08.2016, the respondents 1 and 2 published in which the respondents 3 to 7 were said to be eligible for opening of coger B and 8 other bidders were declared as ineligible including the petitioner. The reason for declaring the petitioner is ineligible is that the Yarn Dyeing Unit of the petitioner is not equipped with ZLD and therefore they are not eligible for the tender. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that if the respondents 1 and 2 are not convinced about the eligibility of the petitioner, they at least ought to have given an opportunity to them before declaring them ineligible. The conditions in the tender states that the Zero Liquid Discharge facility is mandatory. The said Zero Liquid Discharge facility is in practise only in few Mills in Tamil Nadu and in other States of India, such Zero Liquid Discharge facility is not in practise and only the norms set out by the respective Pollution Control Boards are applicable. The manufacturing unit, in this particular case, is in Gujarat. As the Tender being floated at all India level, there is no bar for petitioner to participate in the tender. The certificate produced by the petitioner from the Pollution Control Board at Gujarat categorically sates that if the plant is attached to the Common Effluent Treatment plant, that affluent plant is in compliance with the requirement and when ultimately water is treated, it is equivalent to Zero Liquid Discharge and in that view of the matter, the Order passed by the second respondent, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, is not correct. In the tender pertaining to Polystern Yarn, none of the ten bidders identified as eligible having ZLD facility are in fact ineligible and it is not known as to how the respondents 1 and 2 have declared them as eligible. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the process of tender adopted by the respondents 1 and 2 is arbitrary and discriminatory.