S SANTHAKUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is listed today for admission and I heard the counsel for both sides.

(2.) THE prayer in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the resolution of the third respondent's meeting notice dated 16. 02. 2007 with reference to item no. (8) relating to Sl. Nos. (3) and (4) work of the re-tender notification dated 02. 02. 2007 and quash the same and consequently confirm the tender contract to the petitioner with reference to Sl. Nos. (3) and (4) work and issue work order.

(3.) MRS. Thilagavathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that to non-suit the petitioner, the other tenderers were allowed to withdrew their offer after opening of the petitioner's tender; that when other participants withdrew their offer, the second respondent is duty bound to accept the offer made by the petitioner, hence, the resolution passed by the municipal council, rejecting the petitioner's tender and deciding to go for re-tender is unsustainable in law; that the second and third respondents now accepted the tender of 7. 04% lesser than the estimated cost by imposing a strange condition of additional security money deposit of about Rs. 25,000/-whereas the petitioner's tender of about 5% less than the estimated cost was rejected on the ground sub-standard quality only could be supplied, which is nothing but a discrimination and prayed for allowing of the writ petition.