Heard Mr.P.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader who has taken notice and made his submissions based on instructions by producing records.

2. The writ petitioner is one of the applicants applied pursuant to the public notice issued by the first respondent, Director of Collegiate Education, for execution of Single Window System (SWS) of counselling work at Lady Willington Institute of Advanced Studies in Education Campus, Chennai-5. The third respondent has also applied in accordance with the said notification. As per the terms and conditions set out by the second respondent based on which the application has been made by the petitioner as well as third respondent, participants should comply with the following conditions:

(1) The company should possess ISO certificate.

(2) The tender company should be in existence for a minimum period of 10 years (Incorporation certificate should be enclosed).

(3) The company should have prior experience in executing similar type of Single Window Counselling work for a minimum of two organizations.

(4) The annual turnover of the company shall be more than Rs.3 crores in the preceding 3 years [Auditors Report].

(5) Proof for submission of latest income tax returns.

(6) Stage wise [1 to 7] cost price to be quoted per application.

(7) Stage 1 to Stage 5 must be completed by 06.09.09.

(8) Counselling to be conducted.

and the sealed tenders were received upto to 28. 2009 to be opened on the said date. As per the conditions each participant should enclose in two separate covers, one about the technical capability and another about the price bid. It is the complaint of the petitioner that even in the previous year the petitioner has applied in accordance with the earlier notification apart from the third respondent and when certain illegalities were anticipated, the petitioner has moved this Court. Since by that time the tender process has been completed and the third respondent was already awarded the tender there was no interim order and the third respondent accordingly has been awarded the tender and has carried out the work as per the notification. This year the apprehension of the petitioner is that the third respondent has no qualification since the third respondent has applied in a single cover in respect of the technical bid as well as price bid which is against the terms and conditions of the notification and also the terms and conditions under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) and therefore, the tender applied by the third respondent ought to have been rejected by the second respondent. Further it is the case of the petitioner that tenders were opened in the presence of the petitioner including the third respondent and it was found that the third respondent has made both the technical bid as well as the price bid in one cover when the tenders were opened. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has applied in two covers as per the terms and conditions under the Act and anticipating that the second respondent is likely to confirm the contract to the third respondent as in the last year the present writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondents 1 and 2 to act as per the Act and strictly as per the tender notification dated 8. 2009 and to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from issuing the tender confirmation in favour of the third respondent.

3. Mr.P.Jayarayam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has taken me to various provisions of the Act and submitted that every one of the provisions of the Act should be read as forming part of the terms and conditions and if that is taken into account the third respondent has certainly failed to comply with the requirements as per law and therefore, the third respondents application should have been rejected. It is also his contention that the