S RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he is a Police Contractor, engaged in the execution of minor civil works including repair and maintenance of Police Buildings in and around Tirunelveli District. THE procedure involved in allotting these civil works was by inviting tender schedules from the Police Contractors and the Contractors quoting the lowest tender amount were awarded the contract. THE costs involved in preparing the tender schedules accrued on the applicant Contractors. While so, the petitioner had received the communication, dated 9.9.2002, issued by the second respondent. It was stated that in consonance with the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.1789/PWD, dated 27.12.1992, the cost of the tender schedules and the sales tax as per the audit notes of the A.G/Madurai for the year 2001-2002, vide Lr.No.AG Audit MDU/ISC.VIII/19-3/2001-2002, dated 23.7.2001, would be realised from the specified contractors, including the petitioner, for the tender schedules issued to them from the years 1993-1994 to 2000-2001.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned notice had been issued to the petitioner only for the actual amount due from him and that the said notice had been issued in accordance with law. The petitioner has not shown as to how the impugned notice of the second respondent, dated 13.1.2003, is arbitrary and devoid of merits. The said notice has been issued only after considering the representations of the petitioner, dated 26.12.2002 and 3.1.2003. The amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner is due from him, as it includes the costs of tender schedules and the sales tax, which the petitioner had defaulted in paying.