Direction issued to State Govt. to formulate proper procedure for grant of tender document.

The petitioner seeks for a writ of Declaration declaring all the proceedings pursuant to the tender notification Na.Ka.A2/1290/03 dated 27.5.2003 of the first respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

2. The petitioner submits that he is a registered Class-I Contractor in Ramanathapuram District. He was granted certificate on 17.8.2001 enabling him to take up all public works in the Panchayat Unions in the District upto and above Rs.25 lakhs. He was, therefore, eligible to participate in the tenders floated by all Panchayat Unions in Ramanathapuram District. The petitioner further alleges that the third respondent is a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the ruling party. He is also the husband of the elected Chairman of the Panchayat Union. Though he does not have any role to play in the affairs of the Panchayat Union, taking advantage of his political affiliation and power, he was influencing all the officials of the Panchayat Union and the officers were acting only according to his dictation.

3. The petitioner further states that a tender notification was issued on 27.5.2003, inviting tenders in respect of six items of work. The estimated value of the works, cost of tender schedules and the sales tax payable thereon were fixed in the tender schedule conditions. It is also mentioned that the tender schedules were to be obtained from the first respondent on payment of cost of tender schedules and sales tax to the Treasury of the Panchayat Union by 3.00 p.m. on 5.6.2003 and the tenders were to be submitted to the office of the first respondent by 3.00 p.m. on 6.6.2003 and the tender opening shall be at 4.00 p.m. on 6.6.2003. The petitioner went to the office of the first respondent on 2.6.2003 for obtaining the challan for remitting the cost for all the six works and to obtain the tender schedule. However, the second respondent/ Commissioner informed him that he has been instructed by the third respondent to restrict the issuance of tender schedules only to the persons recommended by him and unless the petitioner's name was recommended, the second respondent would not issue even the challan. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.15274 of 2003, praying for a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to issue the challan for payment of the cost and the sales tax. He also prayed for an interim direction to issue tender schedule on receipt of the cost. This Court, by order dated 4.6.2003, directed the first respondent to issue the challan for payment of cost and sales tax and to issue the tender schedule.

4. The petitioner further submits that on receipt of the copy of the order of this Court, he went to the office of the first respondent on 5.6.2003 and submitted a copy of the order of this Court and requested issuance of challan. The Assistant working in the office had received order copy at 12.20 p.m. Though the challan ought to have been issued on the same day, for reasons which are obvious, at the instance of the third respondent, the second respondent postponed the tender to 11.6.2003. According to the petitioner, the said action was only to somehow see to it that the tender schedules were not made available to the petitioner. Thereafter, he approached the office of the first respondent and again, on 10.6.2003. A challan for a sum of Rs.4,104/- towards the cost and sales tax for all six items was issued. However, by the time the petitioner was to remit the said amount, he was informed that Item 1 out of six works was adjourned. A fresh challan was issued only for Items 2 to 6 for a sum of Rs.1,944/- towards cost and sales tax, which amount was remitted by the petitioner on 10.6.2003 itself.

5. According to the petitioner, after remitting the cost, he approached the first respondent for the grant of tender schedule. The first respondent had stated that the tender schedules were not ready and that it would be ready at 4.00 p.m. which the petitioner can collect at 4.00 p.m. However, even