NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FARMERS Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that it is the Federation of Farmers Procurement Processing and Retailing Cooperative Society. Pursuant to the tender notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Civil supplies Corporation on 01.07.2019 inviting e-tender for supply of 75,000 MTs of S-30 Grade Sugar as per the specification for the season 2018-2019, the petitioner with an intention to participate in the tender took samples of sugar as required under the tender documents and presented before the 2nd respondent on 31.07.2019 but the 2nd respondent refused to receive it. As a result, they sent a communication on the same day (31.07.2019) narrating the events and expected the respondent to act upon it. Thereafter, on 02.08.2019 a complaint was sent to the 1st respondent pointing out the unfair practice. There was no response from the official respondents for the said communication, which prompted the petitioner to send another communication on 05.08.2019 to the official respondents as well as the other statutory authorities requesting to offer the contract to supply 15,000 MTs of S-30 sugar at the rate of Rs.39,500/- per MT which could be delivered at the designated delivery points. To the said communication dated 05.08.2019, the 1st respondent caused a letter dated 09.08.2019, forwarding a copy of the petitioner's letter for necessary action. While the representation was pending for consideration with the official respondents, the 2nd respondent has awarded the tender in favour of the 3rd respondent for supply of 30,000 MTs of S-30 sugar at the rate of Rs.47,500/- per MTs.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent arbitrarily refused to receive the samples submitted for testing as required under the tender documents. Further the representation of the petitioner dated 05.08.2019 was taken note by the 1st respondent and explanation was sought from the 2nd respondent. Even before the representation could be disposed, the 2nd respondent has hurriedly confirmed the tender in favour of the 3rd respondent and awarded the tender for a price higher than what the petitioner has offered. The act of the 2nd respondent in accepting the bid of the 3rd respondent who has quoted higher rate than what quoted by the petitioner would amount to dereliction of duties and responsibilities as a responsible public servant. The 2nd respondent ought to have accepted the offer of the petitioner to avoid wrongful loss to the public ex-chequer. Contrarily, in spite of less rate offered by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has given the tender in favour of the 3rd respondent for higher rate, which is even higher than the retail price prevailing in the market.