RAJESWARI PUTHAGA NILAYAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of the first respondent made in G.O.Ms.No.208 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (SGS-I) Department dated 31.12.2007 and the consequential G.O.Ms.No.88, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (SGS-I) Department dated 05.06.2008 so far it relates to the constitution of committee at the sole discretion of the second respondent for the purpose of selecting books to be supplied for Village Panchayat Libraries pursuant to the notification published by the second respondent in "Daily Thanthi" dated 20.08.2007 is concerned and to direct the respondents to consider and select the publication submitted by the petitioners based upon the method for the libraries for Village Panchayats pursuant to the procedure notified by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.97, Rural Development and Panchayat (SGS-2) dated 13.06.2007.

(2.) THE short matrix of the matter as put forth by the petitioners in these writ petitions are set out here under:- 2.1. THE petitioners are publishers in various classes. THE Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.Ms.No.115, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 11.09.2006 introduced a scheme under the name and style of Anaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam, (herein after referred as the Scheme). Under the Scheme, the Government allotted funds for the development of the villagers and in addition to the existing allocation of more than Rs.320 Crores, a further sum of Rs.90 Crores was allotted. THE Scheme contemplates opening and maintenance of reading room in every village panchayat. THE said library / reading room could also accommodate indoor games such as chess, carom board, etc. and necessary furniture could be purchased for implementation of the Scheme.2. 2. To ensure more effective implementation of the Scheme, the second respondent herein submitted certain proposals to the Government which were accepted and G.O.Ms.No.97, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 13.06.2007 came to be issued. Clause 10 of the said Government Order envisages constitution of Development Level Committee of 16 members, under the Chairmanship of District Collector. THE District Librarian of each District, the Chief Educational Officer, Deputy Director of Medical Services, District Sports Officer were members of the committee. Under clause 12, tenders were called for, for implementing various schemes and appointed the Block Development Officer as the tender inviting authority, upto Rs.5,00,000/- and in respect of tenders over and above Rs.5,00,000/-, the District Collector is empowered. As per Clause 12 of the said Government Order, in respect of tenders for books, wooden furniture and sports materials, the District Collector of the concerned District was appointed as the tender inviting authority upto the limit of Rs.5,00,000/- and over and above Rs.5,00,000/-, the Director of Rural Development, the second respondent herein.2.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents along with an application in M.P.No.4 of 2008 for vacating the interim order, wherein the following facts have been set out:-5.1. G.O.Ms.No.97 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 13.06.2007 designated the District Collector as the tender inviting authority and later, the power was vested with the second authority by later Government Order dated 31.12.2007. Who should be the tender inviting authority is purely an internal executive decision of the Government and it in no way affected the rights of any book publishers or dealers.5. 2. The Government consciously took a decision to empower the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (herein after referred as DRD) to call for expression of interest at the State Level for supply of books from the publishers and dealers instead of District Collectors as originally envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 13.06.2007, because-(i) The Collectors have multifarious duties and it would not be possible for them to involve themselves in the selection of books(ii) The District Collectors, who are in mofussil, may not be as well placed as DRD, who is stationed at Chennai who would be in a position to rope in eminent academic / library experts such as Director of Public Libraries, Director of Tamil Development Department and Librarian of the University of Madras to select the books meant for this Scheme.(iii) There will be huge expenditure on advertisements and avoidable and wasteful paper work when each of the 30 District Collectors individually issues tender advertisements and processes the bids.(iv) When calling for tenders at the State Level, the DRD is better placed than the District Collectors in negotiating bulk discounts on the quoted price in the purchase of library books.(v) The books are selected at district level and each district may adopt different norms for selecting the authors, title and publishers of the books.(vi) Even from the point of view of the publishers / dealers, it is more convenient for them to participate in one single tender at the State level instead of participating in 30 District level tenders.5. 3. The advertisement published on 20.08.2007 had specifically mentioned that the DRD was calling for the expression of interest for supplying books. The writ petitioners knew very well even at the time of applying to the second respondent that it was the DRD and not the District Collectors who had called for the expression of interest and they did not choose to challenge the jurisdiction of the second respondent to call for tenders in the place of the District Collectors, but now they are challenging the same after a delay of nearly fourteen months only when they came to know that none of their titles have been selected. Thus, there is laches on the part of the petitioners and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine.5. 4. The rights of the petitioners or any other publishers have been altered in any manner by the fact that the DRD called for tender at the State level instead of the District Collectors calling for the same at the District level.5. 5. The total of 1,039 publishers / dealers expressed their interest for supply of books to the Anaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam Anaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam (AGAMT) Village Libraries in response to the advertisement dated 20.08.2007. They have been asked to furnish particulars pertaining to their general standard and their capacity to deliver books in time if selected. Finally, 818 publishers / dealers furnished their particulars and were initially shortlisted. They furnished the list of books along with the cost of books and discount offered by them.5.