Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
National Federation of Farmers Procurement, Processing & Retailing Co-operatives of India Limited (NACOF) – Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 26946 of 2019 & W.M.P. Nos. 26328 & 26329 of 2019
Decided On : 09-09-2019
For the Petitioner:V. Raghavachari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:L.P. Shanmugasundaram, Standing Counsel, Vijay Narayanan, Advocate General.
Compliance with tender submission requirements and demonstrating standing to challenge the tender process are essential for seeking judicial intervention in tender disputes.
Headnote:
Tender Process - S-30 Grade Sugar - IS498:2003 - The court discussed the tender process for the supply of S-30 Grade Sugar as per IS498:2003, highlighting the requirements for submitting samples, the timeline for tender submission, and the evaluation criteria. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the tender specifications and timelines, and concluded that the petitioner lacked the standing to interfere in the tender process due to non-compliance with the submission requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cooperative society, participated in a tender for the supply of S-30 Grade Sugar. The petitioner alleged that the 2nd respondent arbitrarily refused to receive the samples, and the tender was awarded to a third respondent at a higher rate than the petitioner's offer. The petitioner sought to quash the tender and award it to them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to comply with the tender submission requirements and lacked standing to interfere in the tender process. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner could not demonstrate attempts to participate in the tender before the cut-off date.
Issues: The issues involved non-receipt of samples, alleged unfair practices in tender award, and the petitioner's standing to challenge the tender process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to comply with the tender submission requirements and the lack of evidence of attempts to participate before the cut-off date deprived them of standing to challenge the tender process.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. The court concluded that the petitioner lacked standing to interfere in the tender process.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in proceedings nil, dated 16.08.2019 on the file of second respondent awarding the supply of S-30 grade sugar as per IS498:2003 to the third respondent and quash the same and consequential direct the second respondent to award the tender to the petitioner in pursuance to their offer dated 05.08.2019.)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that it is the Federation of Farmers Procurement Processing and Retailing Co-operative Society. Pursuant to the tender notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Civil supplies Corporation on 01.07.2019 inviting e-tender for supply of 75,000 MTs of S-30 Grade Sugar as per the specification for the season 2018-2019, the petitioner with an intention to participate in the tender took samples of sugar as required under the tender documents and presented before the 2nd respondent on 31.07.2019 but the 2nd respondent refused to receive it. As a result, they sent a communication on the same day (31.07.2019) narrating the events and expected the respondent to act upon it. Thereafter, on 02.08.2019 a complaint was sent to the 1st respondent pointing out the unfair practice. There was no response from the official respondents for the said communication, which prompted the petitioner to send another communication on 05.08.2019 to the official respondents as well as the other statutory authorities requesting to offer the contract to supply 15,000 MTs of S-30 sugar at the rate of Rs.39,500/- per MT which could be delivered at the designated delivery points. To the said communication dated 05.08.2019, the 1st respondent caused a letter dated 09.08.2019, forwarding a copy of the petitioner’s letter for necessary action. While the representation was pending for consideration with the official respondents, the 2nd respondent has awarded the tender in favour of the 3rd respondent for supply of 30,000 MTs of S-30 sugar at the rate of Rs.47,500/- per MTs.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent arbitrarily refused to receive the samples submitted for testing as required under the tender documents. Further the representation of the petitioner dated 05.08.2019 was taken note by the 1st respondent and explanation was sought from the 2nd respondent. Even before the representation could be disposed, the 2nd respondent has hurriedly confirmed the tender in favour of the 3rd respondent and awarded the tender for a price higher than what the petitioner has offered. The act of the 2nd respondent in accepting the bid of the 3rd respondent who has quoted higher rate than what quoted by the petitioner would amount to dereliction of duties and responsibilities as a responsible public servant. The 2nd respondent ought to have accepted the offer of the petitioner to avoid wrongful loss to the public ex-chequer. Contrarily, in spite of less rate offered by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has given the tender in favour of the 3rd respondent for higher rate, which is even higher than the retail price prevailing in the market.
4. The learned Advocate General took notice at the time of admission itself and submitted that the petitioner is not a participant in the tender. For the first time on 31.07.2019, he gave a representation to the 2nd respondent expressing his intention to participate in the tender. By the time the cut off date fixed for submitting the sample sugar expired. Further, the learned Advocate General would also submit that, it is not correct to say the tender was given to one single person for higher rate and wrongful loss caused by the 2nd respondent. From among the bidders for supply of 75,000 MTs S-30 grade sugar, for supply of 30,000 MTs of sugar awarded to the 3rd respondent and remaining 45,000 MTs of sugar supply awarded to one Natural Food Products, Namakkal.
5. The learned Advocat
