A petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the acceptance of a tender by a statutory authority for breach of statutory rules unless he has a legal right to have his own tender accepted.

ORDER :- Improvements had to be carried out to the Palladam-Cochin Frontier Road which lay in the Coimbatore district. The work had to be paid for by the District Board of Coimbatore. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 98,000. The Divisional Engineer, Highways, called for tenders for the execution of that work - tenders to be submitted before 12-5-1955. The petitioner, the 2nd respondent and others submitted tenders. Eventually, under the orders of the Government, the tender of the 2nd respondent, which was the lowest, was accepted by the District Board. That was on 19-12-1955.

2. It was the validity of that action of the District Board which the petitioner challenged by his application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari.

3. The petitioner contended that the acceptance of the tender of the 2nd respondent was vitiated by breach of rules 9 and 10 of the rules for Tenders of Contracts framed by the Government under S. 199(2) (n) of the Madras District Boards Act, 1920, Act XIV of 1920. Rule 9 runs :

"No tender shall ordinarily be treated as valid unless it is accompanied either by the earnest money specified in the tender notice, or by a treasury receipt in token of the party having remitted into treasury the amount of the earnest money.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the notice inviting tenders specified that the earnest money of Rs. 4,900 should be deposited with the District Board or should be deposited in treasury and the challan produced along with the tender. Learned counsel contended that the 2nd respondent did not comply either with the statutory rule, rule 9, or with the conditions of the tender notice.

Instead of depositing the money with the District Board or into the treasury, the 2nd respondent sent a cheque. That subsequently the cheque was returned to the 2nd respondent and he deposited the amount required with the District Board does not really affect the question at issue. On the facts admitted, the 2nd respondent did not comply with rule 9, because instead of depositing the money as required by that rule, he sent a cheque for that amount.

5. The further contention of the petitioner was that rule 10 was also violated. The petitioner pleaded that the 2nd respondent was not a registered contractor at all. The second respondent virtually admitted that on the date he submitted his tender he had not been registered in Coimbatore district itself as a contractor, and registration was granted to him subsequently on 1-10-1955; but he pleaded that he was a registered contractor in the adjoining districts.

6. Rule 10, violation of which was alleged by the petitioner, runs as follows :

"Only tenders from registered contractors shall be considered. This condition shall not be enforced in the case of capital works the contract amount of which exceeds Rs. 20,000..... In the case of capital works the contract amount of which exceeds Rs. 20,000, tenders from engineering firms of standing and from contractors registered in or outside the district for such capital works may be considered. Tenders from unregistered contractors may also be considered, if they are accompanied by copies of testimonials or record of previous execution by them of any such capital work and by proof of their financial stability and capability for executing such capital works......"

I shall omit the proviso, as it will not be necessary to refer to that.

7. The contention of the petitioner was that, along with the tender which the 2nd respondent submitted, he did not furnish testimonials or proof of his financial stability and capability for executing such a capital work. That argument, of course, was based on the assumption, that the 2nd respondent was an unregistered contractor. The specific plea of the 2nd respondent which I have already referred to above, was that, though he had not been registered in Coimbatore, his status was that of a registered contractor.

He was a contractor registered