FAR WOOD INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus for bearing respondents 1 to 3 and their men from awarding the items Al to A6 of Schedule-A and items C1 and C2 of Schedule C of the tender for the interior design of M.M.D.A. office at M.M.D.A. Towers, Madras-8 to the contractors who quoted higher rate than that of the petitioner and direct respondents 1 to 3 to award the above items in favour of the petitioner. It is further prayed to grant the relief of compensation in addition to the above relief for the portion of work already compleged at the rate of 20% of the quotation value submitted by the petitioner and such other reeliefs as the court may deem fit.

(2.) THE brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition can be stated as follows: THE Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (2nd respondent) is constructing a building called M.M.D.A. towers situated at Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Madras-8. THE construction work was completed and the building was sold to various Government organisations, such as, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Housing and Urban Development Corporation, and the second respondent (Madras Metropolitan Development Corporation) has retained some portion for its office purposes, in which the interior decoration work was entrusted to the 3rd respondent, namely, Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd. THE third respondent called for tenders from the interior contract decorators in respect of 11 items of various interior decorations which consist of schedules A to D, out of which A schedule consists of six items C schedule consists of three items and B and D schedule, each one item. THE petitioner was one of the persons who bid for the tender and he submitted his tender on 9.1.1989. THE tenders were opened on the same day at 11.30 A.M. before the tenderers. According to the petitioner, among 13 participants, the petitioner�s quotation in respect of items A-1 to A-6 of schedule A and items C1 and C2 of schedule C was the lowest. However, the petitioner was informed that his tender was not accepted, on 3.2.1989 and that the rejection of his tender is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is further stated by the petitioner that he was one of the short listed members considered as qualified for the work of interior decoration by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 28.11.1988. THE petitioner submitted that he is a reputed contractor in interior design and that he did work of contracts for famous companies. In the very same M.M.D.A.Towers, for the third and fourth floors, the petitioner completed the interior decorations for Messrs.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. According to the petitioner, clause 5 of the tender notice is invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as respondents 2 and 3 cannot discriminate one contractor from others without assigning any reasons.

(3.) THE third respondent in his counter-affidavit would state that he engaged the fourth respondent-Firm to provide consultancy for interior design of the said building and the fourth respondent gave a report to the third respondent regarding his evaluation of the tender. THE recommendation of the fourth respondent has been arrived at after several consideration, like (i) workability of the rate based on specification given, and (ii) ability of the agency to handle the kind of work involved. Based on the recommendation of the fourth respondent and on the evaluation of the third respondent, the third respondent recommended the tenderer for interior design wQrk on 30.1.1989 for M.M.D.A.� s approval and on 1.2.1989 the recommendations were accepted. THE details of the work, the contractor to whom they were entrusted and the amount, etc. were set out in paragraph 6. According to the third respondent, there is no condition that the lower tender alone should be accepted and that under Clause 5 of the tender notice, the third respondent reserves his right to reject any or all the tender or accept the lowest or any other tender in full or part without assigning any reason therefor. It is further stated that the rates quoted by the petitioner is very much less than the cost of materials and it is unworkable. If the tender of the petitioner is accepted, it may amount to substandard work in view of the cost of materials, labour cost, etc. and that the rejection of the petitioner�s tender was just and reasonable and without any discrimination or arbitrariness.