M. VASANTHI Vs. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the Tender Notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 28.07.2016 with No. STM/REV/IV/2257 published in Dinakaran dated 29.07.2016, quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to fix the EMD amount after obtaining concurrence of the 1st respondent.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she is the licence holder in respect of cattle shandy held every Friday at Old Trunk Road at Pallavaram from 2012 and by virtue of licence issued to her, she has been collecting itinerant vendor's fee from the vendors, who set up shops in the open market area and also parking fees from the vehicles parked in the shandy. The grant of licence is by way of calling for tenders and the petitioner was the successful tenderer for the year 2012 for maintenance of market area, collection of itinerant Vendor Fee and Parking Fee in the Friday Weekly Market held in the lands under the control of the 2nd respondent. The period of licence was for a period of 2 years. Though the licence period came to an end in the year 2014, according to the petitioner, her licence period was extended by 2 years. Subsequent to that, the petitioner spent huge sums of money for clearing dumped garbage, sewage water, etc, in the shandy, as these facilities were not available. While things stood so, suddenly, the impugned tender notification has been published by the 2nd respondent, in a Tamil Daily, namely, "Dinakaran", on 29.07.2016, calling for sealed tenders for maintenance of market area, collection of itinerant vendor fee and parking fees on every Friday for a period of two years, fixing 10 th August, 2016 as the date for opening the tenders. The said notification is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr.S.M. Murali Dharan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that eventhough, by virtue of auction conducted in 2012, licence was granted to the petitioner for 2 years, subsequently, on expiry of the period of licence, it was extended by 2 years. According to the learned counsel, with an intention to deprive the petitioner from participating in the tender process, the 2nd respondent has, deliberately, enhanced the Earnest Money Deposit amount in the present tender notification and fixed it as Rs.5 lakhs to help some other parties. There is no guideline, rule or procedure followed for fixing Earnest Money Deposit and Solvency amounts. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned notification is liable to be quashed.