The court cannot interfere with the terms of the tender unless they are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, or actuated by malice.

This Writ Petition is filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent relating to his order Na.Ka.6642/D1/2015 dated 21.11.2016 and the consequential tender notice dated 05.01.2017 published in “Daily Thanthi” by the 4th respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents to call for a fresh tender with the conditions prevailing in earlier years.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a fisherman and one of the Executive Committee member of the fourth respondent Cooperative society. The members of the fourth respondent Cooperative society are permitted to catch fish in the specific stretch of river Cauvery from Hogenekkal to Mettur Dam. The fourth respondent society is arranging for marketing the fish caught from the river Cauvery and brought by the members, who have been issued with licence to catch fish in the Mettur Reservoir by the Fisheries Department. The fishes brought are categorised into five groups. The fourth respondent society fixed the rate per kilogram for each group of fish as upset price. Based on the representation, dated 08.06.2016, of the fifth respondent, who is the President of the fourth respondent society, and also on the decision taken in the General Body Meeting held on 26.08.2016, the second respondent has passed an order dated 21.11.2016 directing the fourth respondent society to invite tenders for the sale of the fish, by including the following new tender conditions.

“36. The tenderer must have prior experience on fish sales for not less than 3 years. The fish sales experience means that he/she should produce certificate of either prior tenderer of fish marketing societies or fishing from Government Reservoirs or tanks or registered fish merchants.

37. The tenderer should submit relevant documents with Income Tax Return (ITR) Certificate for the last three years.

39. Every tenderer should enclose latest solvency certificate obtained after 25.01.2016 for Rupees One Crore with the application form.”

The aforesaid order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the second respondent was placed before the Board meeting of the society, which was held on 15.12.2016 and a resolution was passed by the majority of the Board members fixing the price of each group of fish by increasing 10% of the previous year and to call for the tenders as directed by the second respondent. The petitioner and other two members have strong objection for the incorporation of aforesaid new conditions in the tender notice, on the ground that, if the new conditions will be incorporated, there will be restriction in the competition among the tenderers and if there are several bidders/tenderers, they will quote higher price for the fish and if there is only one bidder or if there are few bidders, the bid price for the fish will be the minimum price stipulated in the tender and therefore, the petitioner will loose huge amount throughout the year, as the fish will have to be sold to the successful bidder and in open market through the Society, for the amount quoted at the time of tender. However, the fourth respondent published tender notice, dated 05.01.2017, by including the aforesaid new tender conditions. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court challenging the inclusion of aforesaid new tender conditions, in the present tender notice.

3. According to the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, average sale of the fish to the society by the tenderers range from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per day with annual sale of more than Rs.2 crores. Weekly bill is raised for the fish delivered and the tenderer should make payment on every Monday and Thursday. Earlier, the small fish merchants, who were awarded contracts, could not make regular payments to the society,