MADRAS SECURITY PRINTERS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Writ Petitions have been filed, one by M/s. Madras Security Printers and the other by M/s. Rosemerta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., praying for a mandamus, directing the respondents to accept the petitioners' bids for issuance of Smart Card based Driving Licence and Vehicle Registration at Regional Transport Offices of Chennai (South), Cuddalore and Sivagangai on 'Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT) basis and process and consider the petitioners' bids on merit and in accordance with the tender terms along with other bidders.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they are the leading concerns, engaged in the business of security printing and smart card manufacturing, e-governance, system integration and software solution and they have vast experience in smart card manufacturing and participated in several tenders, issued by the State and the Central Government and become successful bidders.

(3.) WITH regard to Madras Security Printers, it is their case that after duly completing the requirements of the bid documents, they deputed their representative Mr.Velu to the office of the third respondent to submit the bid. The said representative reached the premises of the third respondent well within time and at the time of signing of the Entry Register, it was 02.55 p.m. However, since the persons at the reception desk stated that the time was 03.00 p.m., the same was entered as 03.00 p.m. The said Entry Register would reveal that the representative of the petitioner had already gone to the third respondent premises within time. Thereafter, when he proceeded to the first floor to submit the bid to the Deputy Transport Commissioner-I, he was not present and finding that nobody was available there, the representative immediately came back to the reception in the ground floor and sought to find out where the bid could be submitted. It was only at that time the representative was informed that the venue for submission of the bids was shifted to fifth floor of the same building and on reaching the fifth floor, it was evident that the officials of first and second respondent were present there and then, he submitted the bid to the first respondent. However, to his shock, the petitioner's bid was refused to be accepted on the frivolous ground that there was a few minutes delay in submission of the bid and the cut off time would be strictly construed as 03.00 p.m. The representative immediately brought to the attention of the respondents that it was only because of the shifting of the venue without any notification or intimation the delay had occurred and that no prejudice would be caused to anybody if the bid were accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner met the officials who also refused to accept the petitioner's bid.