SOCIO ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST Vs. COMMISSIONER, TIRUNELVELI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY; UTHAVUM KARANGAL (SELF HELP GROUP) AND FOOD (FOUNDATION OF OCCUPATIONAL DEVELOPMENT) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LAYOLA JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to award the contract to her, in view of the offer made in pursuance to the tender made on 19.03.2008, being the highest bidder, as per rule.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she is having adequate experience in the field of maintenance of toilets and sanitation as a self help group organisation in the district level rural development programmes and projects organised by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. While so, the first respondent called for tender on 06.03.2008 and 13.03.2008 in Daily Thanthi newspaper, for maintenance of Pay and Use Toilets and Free Toilets cum Bathroom, Sanitation and Upkeeping, and as she has got necessary experience and qualification in the said field, she applied for tender form on payment of Rs. 275/- and she was issued with the tender form on 12.03.2008. On receipt of the tender form, she has gone through the conditions carefully and, as per the requirements, she has paid Rs. 10,000/- by Demand Draft towards E.M.D. and submitted the same on the scheduled date along with the application on 19.03.2008 to the first respondent. The tender was opened by the first respondent on 20.03.2008 in the presence of the Assistant Works Officer, Superintendent, petitioner and other three tenderers and, on opening the tender, it was noticed that the petitioner was the highest bidder and the other three were the lowest bidders.

(3.) The petitioner further states that among the four persons participated in the tender, she quoted the highest offer of Rs. 2,01,050/-, being the monthly rent payable to the first respondent Corporation, as against Rs. 1,06,000/- quoted by the third respondent and the other two tenders were rejected on the ground of insufficient experience and, therefore, the petitioner and the third respondent alone were eligible competitors for the above work. Also, as the petitioner is the highest bidder, she is entitled to the award of contract. However, the first respondent has informed that a decision has been taken to award contract to the third respondent instead of the petitioner.