Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
Sri. Venkatram Spinners Pvt. Ltd., rep by its Managing Director and Others – Petitioners
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, rep by the Principal Secretary, Department of Handlooms and Textiles, St. George Fort, Chennai and Others – Respondents
W.P.Nos.17261, 18987 & 18988 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.18761, 20502 to 20505 of 2017
Decided On : 11-08-2017
Tender Rules - Violation of Tender Rules - Rule 11, Rule 20 - The court found that the tender notification was not published in the Indian Trade Journal as mandated by Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. Additionally, the last date for submission of tenders was less than the minimum 30 days required by Rule 20, and the reduction in time limit was not justified by the authorities. The court held that these violations rendered the tender notification liable to be set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the tender notification for the supply of polyester yarn, citing violations of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. The respondents argued that the petitioners were bound by the tender conditions and cannot question them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tender notification was not published in the Indian Trade Journal as required by Rule 11(1) and the last date for submission of tenders was less than the minimum 30 days required by Rule 20. The reduction in time limit was not justified by the authorities. The court set aside the tender notification and allowed the writ petitions.
Issues: Violation of Tender Rules - Compliance with Rule 11 and Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of Rule 11(1) and Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 are mandatory and cannot be given a go-by by the authorities. The reduction in time limit must be justified by acceptable reasons given by the superior authority. Violation of these rules renders the tender notification liable to be set aside.
Final Decision: The court set aside the tender notification and allowed the writ petitions. The respondents were at liberty to call for fresh tender in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998.
W.P.No.17261 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner viz., Sri Venkatram Spinners Private Limited to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the bid of the petitioner without insisting on the production of a certificate in line with minimum qualification Item Nos.5 & 6 of the tender document, Sl.No.:FDS-2018/DC/001 and consequently accept the Consent Certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board, Mumbai for compliance with Item No.5 & 6 of the said tender document.
2. W.P.No.18987 of 2017 has been filed by T.Muruganantham to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 3rd respondent and quash the notice inviting tender bearing Sl.No.FDS-2018/DC/001 for the supply of 60SC dyed cotton warp yarn for production of Polycot Sarees and Polycot Dhoties under cost free distribution of Sarees and Dhoties Scheme Pongal 2018.
3. W.P.No.18988 of 2017 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 3rd respondent and quash the notice inviting tender bearing Sl.No.FDS-2018/PTY/002 for the supply of polyester yarn for production of Polycot Sarees and Polycot Dhoties under cost free distribution of Sarees and Dhoties Scheme Pongal 2018.
4. Since the issues involved in the above Writ Petitions are common, by consent, all the three Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.
5. The brief case of the petitioners necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petitions is as follows:
(i) The 3rd respondent had issued a tender notification, published in the Newspaper on 22.06.2017 for the supply of polyester yarn for production of Polycot Sarees and Polycot Dhoties under cost free distribution of Sarees and Dhoties Scheme Pongal 2018. The last date for submission of bid was 07.07.2017 before 11.00 am.
(ii) According to the petitioners, under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, the Tender Inviting Authority shall have the notice inviting tender published in the Indian Trade Journal in all cases where the value of procurement exceeds Rs.50 crores. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the value of the procurement of dyed cotton yarn as well as the polyester yarn exceeds Rs.50 crores and consequently, the Tender Inviting Authority should have published the notice inviting tenders in Indian Trade Journal. The said provision has been incorporated so that the manufacturers and suppliers throughout the Country will have an opportunity to participate in the tender when the State procures materials of such large quantity exceeding Rs.50 crores.
(iii) In the case on hand, the notice inviting tender for purchase of dyed cotton yarn and polyester yarn was published only in the State Tender Bulletin and not in the Indian Trade Journal as mandated under Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules 2000. In such circumstances, the impugned notice inviting tenders for supply of dyed cotton yarn and polyester yarn is clearly vitiated and ought to be set aside.
(iv) Under Rule 20 of the Tender Rules 2000, the Tender Inviting Authority shall ensure that adequate time was provided for submission of the tenders and a minimum time was allowed between the date of publication of the notice inviting tenders in the relevant Tender Bulletin or in the Newspapers, whichever is later and the last date for submission of the tenders. The minimum period for tenders more than Rs.2 crores in value shall be 30 days. The notice inviting tenders is in clear violation of Rule 20 of the Tender Rules 2000, in view of the fact that though the notice inviting tenders was published in the State Tender Bulletin on 22.06.2017, the last date for submission of the tender was only 07.07.2017, which is less than 30 days contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules. Since the minimum time for submission of the tenders in excess of Rs.2 crores as stipulated under Rule 20 has been clearly violated, the two tenders issued by the 3rd respondent for supply of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
