SRI SAKRA COMPUTER OFFSET PRINTING REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR K GNANAVEL Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who could not participate in the e-tender floated in view of the express mandate of clause 3(7), which says a bidder should have supplied a minimum of 1000 nos of GI Metal Bins of 1100 litres capacity in a single agreement for any Government Department/organisation, local bodies in any of the preceding 3 years and whose tender was rejected in one case has come forward to file the writ petition challenging the same.

(2.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said clause 3 (7) is bordering an extreme arbitrariness apart from being unreasonable as except the private respondents nobody else would be qualified otherwise. They are the successful tenderers who supplied a minimum of 1000 nos of GI Metal Bins of 1100 litres capacity in a single agreement which was floated only in the last year. This averment has not been denied or disputed in the the counter affidavit filed. Therefore, there is no attempt of fair play involved.

(3.) The Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 would submit that for other Districts, the entire process is over including the issuance of work order. The petitioner did not request the Executive Engineer to inspect his factory premises to show his capacities to manufacture the products. In so far as the 5th respondent is concerned, the petitioner has not participated in the tender process and sought clarification. In so far as the 5th respondent is concerned, the work order has already been issued and for the 4th respondent, the same could not be done in view of the Status Quo. He would fairly submit that in so far as clause 3(7) is concerned, appropriate direction would be given henceforth for the fresh notification/e-tenders to re-visit it so as to make it broad based by allowing all the tenderers to participate.