The terms of the invitation to tender were not open to judicial scrutiny, and the tender inviting authority had the prerogative to accept or reject any tender.

In both these writ petitions, the petitioner questions the incorporation of certain tender conditions as tailor-made, arbitrary and violative of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act (hereinafter called as The Act) and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules (hereinafter called as The Rules). The learned senior counsel appearing for the respective writ petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent adduced common arguments in both the cases. Therefore, with their consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal and are disposed of by this common order.

2. According to the petitioner, he is carrying on the business of trading of pulses and grains for several years and had regularly participated in the tenders floated by the respondent corporation. During the course of such business, the respondent floated the impugned tender on 15.04.2016 for procuring Urud Dal and Canadian Lentil (Split Husked) 10000 MTs each worth about Rs.150 crores for the purpose of distributing it to the Family Card holders in the State at a subsidised rate. It is contended by the petitioner that earlier he has filed WP No. 9334 to 9338 of 2016 etc., batch before this Court challenging the tender notification dated 31.12.2015 issued by the respondent and the same is pending before this Court. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the respondent has floated the impugned tender notification with conditions which are tailor-made to enable only certain tenderers to participate in the tender to the exclusion of others. According to the petitioner, under Clause 3 (2) of the tender relating to pre-qualification criteria, the bidder is required to have quality certification either under Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act and Rules or Bureau of Indian Standards. The fact remains that such certification affixing the Agmark Logo or ISI mark is not available on the product sought to be supplied namely Canadian Yellow Lentil. The Bureau of Indian Standards Mark (ISI) is given only for items that are manufactured and there is no ISI mark This according to the petitioner is an arbitrary condition intended to exclude the regular bidders like the petitioner herein from participating in the tender. In such circumstances, challenging the tender notification dated 15.04.2016 of the respondent, the petitioner has filed these two writ petitions.

3. Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No. 14124 of 2016 would contend that the conditions incorporated in the tender notification dated 15.04.2016 are very difficult to be complied with by by the petitioner and such conditions are imposed only to help some specific bidders. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Rule 20 of The Rules relating to minimum time to be granted for submission of tenders. As per Rule 20 (b), when the value of the tender exceeds Rs.2 crores, 30 days time has to be given to enable the bidders to submit their bids. As per Rule 20 (2) any reduction in the time stipulated as per Sub-rule (1) has to be specifically authorised by an authority superior to the Tender Inviting Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing. Relying on Rule 20, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that in the instant case, the value of the tender is Rs.150 crores and therefore, as per Rule 20 (b) of The Rules, 30 days time has to be given to the bidders to submit their bids. However, in this case, the impugned tender notification was published on 23.03.2016 and the tender document was to be made available from 29.03.2016 in the website, however, it was made available only from 05.04.2016. In the tender notification, the last date for submission of the tender is mentioned as 15.04.2016. In effect, only 10 days time was granted to the bidders to submit their bid, which is in violation of Rule 20 of The Rules. Further, a perusal of the impugned tender n