The Municipal Council has the discretion to reject tenders and decide on the best method for tender processes and revenue generation, as long as there is no arbitrary exercise of power or mala-fide intention.

1. A Resolution passed bythe third respondent-Maraimalai Nagar Municipality has been called in question in this Writ Petition in Resolution No.131, dated 11.5.2012, seeking to quash the same and for consequential direction to allot the work to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(i) The petitioner is having an experience of doing contract work and renewed his contract as a Registered Contractor with the fourth respondent's Municipality in and by proceedings, dated 1.4.2012. The fourth respondent issued a Notification dated 9.2.2012 calling for sealed tender from the Registered Contractors in respect of laying 53 concrete road works. The petitioner submitted tender for 13 works out of 53 works. In respect of all 13 works in which the petitioner submitted the tender forms, the petitioner is the one who offered the lower rate among the tenderers.

(ii) While office note was prepared for placing the tenders for approval of the Council, all 13 works in which the petitioner is the lowest rate offeror, the petitioner's contract work was recommended for approval. But in toto, all the Councillors demanded 10% of the value of the work, as a Commission to them, to allot the work. When the petitioner along with the other Contractors, refused to accede to the demand of the Councillors, the Municipal Council passed a Resolution dated 11.5.2012 to cancel the tender in respect of the quotation of rates less than 5% of the value of the work fixed by the Council and further decided to re-tender the cancelled work.

(iii) Inspite of the petitioner's efforts to get the copy of the Resolution, the authorities failed to furnish the same and the petitioner took the copy of the Resolution through the Website of the Municipality. When the petitioner is anticipating the work order, since he is the lowest tenderer in respect of 13 works and having experience in laying the concrete roads, the impugned Resolution is a shocking surprise to the petitioner and after knowing the same, the petitioner made a representation on 11.7.2012 seeking cancellation of the impugned Resolution to the first and second respondents. But the third and fourth respondents are taking steps to implement the Resolution to call for the fresh tenders. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

3. The petitioner challenges the impugned Resolution on the following grounds:

(a) The third and fourth respondents are having no authority and power to accept and fix 5% of lesser value of the value fixed by the Municipality.

(b) If the third and fourth respondents allotted the work to the petitioner and others as quoted by the tenderers, they can save nearly Rs.50 lakhs, but for the unlawful gain of the Councillors at the cost of the Municipality, they indulged in passing the impugned Resolution.

(c) The Municipal Council was on the wrong assumption that the quality of the work may not be up to the mark and the public fund may be drained wastefully, and these are all not supported by well found reasonings and even after allotment of work, there are various procedures to be followed while execution of the work and for making final payment to the tenderer. The quality of the work will be tested by the Municipal Engineers at various levels.

(d) The petitioner is an experienced contractor and so far, no complaint is made against him for the inferior quality of the work done by him earlier.

(e) The respondents are not acting in the interest of the Municipality, but trying to spend over and above the actual cost for the reasons best known to them.

(f) The first respondent is duty bound under Section 36(2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act to act on the petitioner's representation dated 11.7.2012, since the impugned Resolution was passed without authority.

(g) The third and fourth respondents are taking steps to bring the Notification for re-tender, and if they are allowed to do so, not only the petit