Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 137
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
K. Veeraputhiran
Versus
District Collector, Collectorate Office, Dindigul
W.P. (MD) No. 254 of 2015 & M.P. (MD). No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 27-01-2015
V. Vinayaga Moorthy, Pariahkumar, Advocates, N. Manoharan, Special Government Pleader.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act 1998 - Section 20(1) - Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 - Issue a fresh auction notification - Contract and transfer of license - Private negotiations - Festival is being conducted for more than years at temple - During festival ground belonging to Sport Development Authority is being used to install various shops and giant wheel and so on for which tender should be called for as per Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act 1998 - Since it was not done as per Act petitioner constrained to file a Writ Petition in which a direction was issued to respondents therein to consider representation of petitioner - Inspire of that respondent did not issue any tender publication and awarded last year tender to one vide proceedings of respondents - Even then respondents did not rectify mistake which resulted filing an another Writ Petition by petitioner seeking a fresh tender - Said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court in which a direction was issued to respondents therein to receive demand draft offered by this petitioner for a sum of for awarding contract and transfer license granted in favor of said to this petitioner - In fact petitioner was forced to file another Writ Petition seeking to grant license to him – Held, Apart from above in order to show bona fide of petitioner in an earlier hearing this Court directed petitioner to bring Demand Draft drawn in favor of respondent to tune as he had offered to pay for this year - Though he could bring a photo copy of demand draft in next hearing date he was able to produce demand draft in original stating that he was harassed by officials and unknowns persons who asked him to get out of tender - Therefore he was unable to bring demand draft as directed by this Court - Noting importance of this case Special Government Pleader was directed to file original file in this regard - Original files were also perused by court – Court could see that there are number of loose sheets in said file - At this juncture Special Government Pleader would plead before this Court that since the function is scheduled and time is insufficient respondent may be given at liberty to conduct festival by invoking Section 20(2) of Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 - In view of foregoing reasons tender is quashed and following directions are issued to respondents - District Collector is at liberty to call for tender after getting necessary approval from his higher authority setting out reasons for invoking Section 20(2) of Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 - It is made clear that advertisement calling for tender in question shall be done in one morning newspaper as well as in one evening newspaper having wide circulation all over Tamil Nadu in order to fetch maximum revenue to Government - It is made clear that petitioner will be permitted to participate in tender if he complies with norms as he has now offered for this year - Respondent should follow rules meticulously as laid down in Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 - Before parting with this order as a word of caution respondent shall at least keep in mind this time and in future that every penny collected by way of contract is a revenue for Government and said amount is spent for welfare of people at large and prosperity of this Country – Therefore this Court cannot shut its eyes to action of awarding tenders in a casual manner like case on hand when irregularities are brought to notice of this Court it has to necessarily struck down tender - Writ Petition stands allowed
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
1. The Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Mandamus to issue a fresh auction notification in the manner known to law to install shops and variety of entertainment galleries in the ground situated behind the Kottaimariyamman temple, Dindigul during the Masi festival of the temple scheduled to be held from 12.02.2015 to 03.03.2015 taking into representation dated 29.12.2014.
2. According to the petitioner, the festival is being conducted for more than 20 years at Kottaimariyamman temple, Dindigul. During the festival, the ground belonging to the Sport Development Authority is being used to install various shops and giant wheel and so on, for which the tender should be called for as per the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act 1998 (for short the Act). Since it was not done as per the Act, the petitioner constrained to file a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 1621 of 2014, in which a direction was issued to the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.01.2014. Inspite of that, the respondent did not issue any tender publication and awarded the last year tender to one Mr. Ramesh Murali vide the proceedings of the respondents dated 03.01.2014. Even then, the respondents did not rectify the mistake, which resulted filing an another Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 3716 of 2014 by the petitioner seeking a fresh tender. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, by this Court on 06.03.2014, in which a direction was issued to the respondents therein to receive the demand draft offered by this petitioner for a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs for awarding the contract and transfer the licence granted in favour of the said Ramesh Mruali to this petitioner. In fact, the petitioner was forced to file another Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 4400 of 2014 seeking to grant the licence to him.
3. Against the order of the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 4400 of 2014, the said Ramesh Murali, the highest bidder filed a Writ Appeal in W.A. (MD) No. 449 of 2014. It was disposed of by this Court on 13.06.2014. In the said Writ Appeal, this Court had condemned the activities of the respondents therein and clearly stated that as the successful bidder had by the time enjoyed the fruits of the tender in question, setting aside of the tender awarded to the said Ramesh Murali would cause numerous anomalies and therefore, the said Ramesh Mruali was directed to pay the difference amount, namely, the amount offered by this petitioner, Rs. 20 Lakhs and the amount offered by the said Ramesh Mruali for awarding such contract. It is also represented by this petitioner that the difference amount as directed by the Division Bench of this Court has not been collected by the respondents, as on date. Noting of the irregularities that had taken placed in the tender, the Division Bench of this Court has posed a serious question to the authorities concerned, which are as follows:-
"The second respondent/District Collector is directed to immediately stop the conduct of the exhibition. The learned Special Government Pleader shall inform the District Collector.
2. The District Collector is directed to file a report explaining:-
(i) as to how without any tender, the appellant was granted licence;
(ii) as to why the district administration should not be directed to compensate the State for having caused loss to the State by granting the larges-see by way of private negotiations to the appellant;
(iii) as to why the District Administration did not stop the appellant from conducting the exhibition atleast immediately after the receipt of the order dated 06.03.2014 and 13.03.2014 passed by this Court.
3. A copy of this order shall be issued to the Special Government Pleader and shall also be communicated to the District Collector?
4. When all these things had happened last year, the respondents did not change their attitude this year too. According to the petitioner, though the upset price was fixed as Rs. 20 Lakhs as offered by him in the
