K V S PALANIVEL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PUDUKOTTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered Contractor with the third respondent Panchayat Union, who has participated in several tenders called for by the respondent. While so, in response to a tender notification issued by the first respondent on 17.06.2009 calling for tenders in respect of three items, the petitioner was inclined to participate. As per the notification tender forms could be purchased on 25.06.2009 up to 04.00 p.m. and the tenders were to be submitted by 26.06.2009 up to 04.00 p.m. and tenders to be opened at 04.30 p.m. on the same day. THE petitioner submits that in order to participate in the tender, he went to the office of the respondents for remitting the cost of the tender forms at 03.40 p.m. and presented a challan for remittance of the cost and it was informed that the work for the tender was called for and already earmarked for certain preferred contractors of the ruling party and hence the tender forms could not be issued. THE petitioner would further submit that this led to arguments and by that time it was 04.10 p.m. and the petitioner was forced to leave the office of the respondents. It is further submitted that the respondents lodged a false complaint before the police against the petitioner and another contractor one Mr.Selvam, as if they had picked up quarrel and used unparliamentary words and the said Mr.Selvam caught hold of the Assistant Block Development Officer by his collar and threatened to assault him. Based on such complaint made by the respondents, a case was registered in Crime No.220 of 2009 on the file of the Alangudi Police for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 353 IPC. As the sections are bailable, the petitioner and Selvam were released on bail on the same day. THEreafter, the third respondent issued a show cause notice on 26.06.2009 calling upon the petitioner to state as to why he should not be removed from the list of contractors.

(2.) ON receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.07.2009 denying all the allegations levelled against him. It is submitted that in the meantime, the third respondent issued another tender notification dated 10.07.2009 calling for tenders for 72 items of work and the cost of the tender forms was to be paid by 04.00 p.m. on 15.07.2009 and the tenders to be submitted by 04.00 p.m. on 16.07.2009 and to be opened on the same day at 05.00 p.m. According to the petitioner, he came to know of the said tender only on 16.07.2009, when some of the registered contractors were going to the office of the first respondent for submission of their tender forms. Therefore, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.6413 of 2009 before this Court challenging the notification and an order of interim injunction has been granted by this Court and the Writ Petition is pending. It is further stated that the third respondent subsequently issued another tender notification dated 21.07.2009 and as per the said notification tender forms to be obtained up to 30.07.2009 and to be submitted on 31.07.2009 up to 04.00 p.m. and to be opened at 04.30 p.m. on the same day. It is further alleged that the petitioner was not intimated about the said tender. At that stage of the matter, on 29.07.2009, an order dated 09.07.2009 was served on the petitioner stating that his name has been removed from the role of registered contractors for the alleged misconduct under Section 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Preparation of Plans and Estimates for Works and Mode and Conditions of Contracts) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The said order dated 09.07.2009 is impugned in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) MR.D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and such conduct cannot allowed to be condoned. He would further submit that the action initiated against the petitioner is just, proper and legal and that the petitioner has been afforded opportunity to submit his explanation and after considering all the factors, the impugned order came to be passed and as such it does not call for any interference. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that Rule 13(7) of the said Rules does not contemplate any personal hearing or inquiry and the order is valid in the eye of law. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that as regards the allegations regarding the drunken behaviour, when the criminal complaint was lodged, there was no direct evidence since the accused were not available and hence the same was not mentioned in the complaint. The learned Government Advocate would submit that council ratified the decision on 30.07.2009.