SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Mad) 1368

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN
G.Jayakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited & Others - Respondents
W.A. No.1027 OF 2005
Decided On : 17 August 2005

Advocates Appeared: For The Appellant:K. Shrendranath, Advocate. For The Respondents:R2 B. Nedunchezian, R3 C. Ravichandran, Advocates.

Writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and the petitioner must show both violation of law and prejudice suffered to obtain a writ.

Headnote:

Tender Notice - Writ Petition - Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000 - The court discussed Rule 20(1) of the Rules, which specifies the minimum time for submission of tenders based on the value of the tender. The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and that the petitioner must show both violation of law and prejudice suffered. The court found that even if there was a violation of Rule 20(1), the petitioner did not suffer any prejudice, and hence, the writ petition was dismissed. The court also discussed the eligibility criteria for tender participation and cited a Supreme Court case to support the requirement for financial stability and capacity of the bidders.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a writ petition seeking to quash a tender notification for transport of TASMAC materials and cancel the tender notification due to alleged illegalities in the tender notice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that even if there was a violation of the tender rules, the petitioner did not suffer any prejudice, and hence, the writ petition was dismissed. The court also rejected the contention that the tender conditions were arbitrary and illegal.

Issues: Violation of tender rules, eligibility criteria for tender participation, and arbitrary tender conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and that the petitioner must show both violation of law and prejudice suffered. The court also cited a Supreme Court case to support the requirement for financial stability and capacity of the bidders.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed as in fructuous.

Judgment :-

(Appeal under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28-4-2005 in WPMP No.47317 of 1984 and WVMP No.1042 of 2005 in W.P. No.39690 of 2004.)

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This writ appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 28-4-2005, passed by the learned single Judge vacating the interim order granted in favour of the appellant. The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking for the relief of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with invitation of tender for transport of TASMAC materials in vans in Thirupur issued by the second respondent and published in Dhina Thanthi paper dated 27-12-2004 calling for tenders to be opened on 5-1-2005 and quash the same and consequently cancel the tender notification dated 27-12-2004.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant first submitted that the tender notice was illegal as it was published only on 27-12-2004 in the newspaper but the last date for submitting the tender was 4-1-2005. Learned counsel relied on Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000, which reads as under:

"20. Minimum time for submission of tenders.-

(1) The Tender Inviting Authority shall ensure that adequate time is provided for the submission of tenders and a minimum time is allowed between date of publication of the Notice Inviting Tenders in the relevant Tender Bulletin or in the newspapers whichever is later and the last date for submission of tenders. This minimum period shall be as follows:

(a)for tenders upto rupees two crores in value, fifteen days; and

(b)for tenders in excess of rupees two crores in value, thirty days.

(2) Any reduction in the time stipulated as per sub rule (1) has to be specifically authorised by an authority superior to the Tender Inviting Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing."

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, the value of the tender is less than rupees two crore and hence, the minimum period, according to Rule 20(1) of the Rules, for submission of the tender forms should be fifteen days. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed that the appellant has submitted his tender before 4-1-2005, which was the last date prescribed by the respondents for submitting the tender. Hence, the appellant cannot be said to have suffered any prejudice even if Rule 20(1) of the said Rules was violated.

4. It may be mentioned that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction – vide Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan JT 2003[6]SC 20 Para 42. Hence, even if there is violation of law, this Court is not bound to issue a Writ – vide R. Nanjappa v. District Collector, Coimbatore (2005 Writ L.R. 47). To obtain a writ, the petitioner must not only show violation of law, he must also show that he has suffered some prejudice on account of such violation of law. This is because writ jurisdiction is equity jurisdiction. To obtain a Writ, the petitioner must satisfy the Court on both points, viz. (1) violation of law by the respondent and (2) on account of such violation, the petitioner has suffered some prejudice. If the petitioner only shows violation of law but fails to satisfy the Court that he has suffered some prejudice, no writ will be issued in his favour.

5. In this case, even assuming that Rule 20(1) of the said Rules has been violated, there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner inasmuch as admittedly the petitioner has submitted the tender application on 4-1-2005. After all the purpose of giving 15 days time is to give adequate time to people to submit their tenders. Hence, the petitioner suffered no prejudice due to violation of Rule 20(1). Hence, on this ground the petitioner cannot obtain a Writ from this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. This contention is, therefore, rejected.

6. Learned counsel then submitted that the tender conditions were arbitrary and illegal. One of the tender conditions was that the bidders must have a turnover of Rs.5,00,0


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top