Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 342
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
Manjeet Kappor, Proprietor - Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Textbook & Educational Services Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Tamil Nadu & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 23823 of 2019 & W.M.P. Nos. 23678, 26105 & 26144 of 2019
Decided On : 01-06-2020
For the Petitioner:Avninder Singh assisted by K. Newlin Frederick, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1, Vijay Narayan, Advocate General assisted by C. Munusamy, Special Government Pleader (Education), R2, T.N.C. Kaushik, R3, K.V. Sajeevkumar, R4, R. Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel assisted by V.R. Kamalanathan, R5, M. Palanimuthu, R6, P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel assisted by S. Thiruvengadam, R7, G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel assisted by V. Kumaravelan, R9, V. Ayyadurai, Senior Counsel assisted by M. Baskar, R10, R. Bharadwajaramasubramaniam, Advocates.
The authority inviting tenders can grant relaxation for bonafide and cogent reasons, provided such relaxation is permissible under the terms governing the tender process. The court's power of judicial review in tender matters is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias, and malafides, and should not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest.
Headnote:
Tender Conditions - Writ Petition - Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 - 4.15.2(l), 4.17 - The court discussed the tender conditions, the submission of samples, and the subsequent actions of the First Respondent in calling for fresh samples from bidders. The court analyzed the legality of the First Respondent's actions in light of the tender rules and relevant legal provisions, including the right to amend or withdraw terms and conditions, and the authority's discretion to deviate from essential terms. The court found that the First Respondent's actions were justified and in conformity with the law, and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Fact of the Case:
The First Respondent called for tenders to supply school bags to school children in Tamil Nadu. The Petitioner, one of the bidders, raised objections to the submission of samples by other bidders containing marks in violation of tender conditions. The First Respondent subsequently called for fresh samples from all bidders. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the First Respondent's actions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the First Respondent's actions in calling for fresh samples were justified and in conformity with the law. The court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the grievance ventilated by the Petitioner had been appropriately redressed, and there was no necessity to issue any directions sought by the Petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the First Respondent was justified in calling for fresh samples of school bags from all bidders after the opening of the technical bids, in light of the tender conditions and the objections raised by the Petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the First Respondent's actions were justified and in conformity with the law, citing the authority's discretion to deviate from essential terms and the absence of discrimination or prejudice to the Petitioner or anyone else. The court also emphasized the limited grounds for interference in tender matters and cautioned against premature interference in ongoing tender processes.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the First Respondent herein to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 09.07.2019, consequentially direct the First Respondent to take appropriate action including rejection of the bids submitted by Second to Tenth Respondents who had submitted their samples with marks in it, violating tender condition No. 4.15.2(l) in the tender bearing reference Rc. No. 558/PUR-II/2019 floated by the First Respondent for supply and delivery of school bags to the school children in Tamil Nadu on annual rate contract basis for the year 2019-2020.)
Heard Mr. Avninder Singh, Learned Counsel for Mr. K.Newlin Frederick, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Vijay Narayan, Learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. C.Munusamy, Learned Special Government Pleader (Education) appearing for the First Respondent, Mr. T.N.C.Kaushik, Learned Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent, Mr. K.V.Sajeevkumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Third Respondent, Mr. R.Thiyagarajan, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V.R Kamalanathan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Fourth Respondent, Mr. M.Palanimuthu, Learned Counsel appearing for the Fifth Respondent, Mr. P.S.Raman, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.Thiruvengadam, Learned Counsel appearing for Sixth Respondent, Mr. G.Masilamani, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V.Kumaravelan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Seventh Respondent, Mr. V. Ayyadurai, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.Baskar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Ninth Respondent and Mr. Bharadwajaramasubramaniam. R, Learned Counsel appearing for the Tenth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The First Respondent, viz., Tamil Nadu Textbook and Educational Services Corporation, by advertisement dated 05.03.2019 called for tenders to implement the scheme of supply of 71.87 lakh cost free school bags to school children studying in Government and Government Aided Schools in Tamil Nadu for the year 2019-2020 on annual rate contract basis to the designated locations within a period of 120 days from the date of issuance of purchase order as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. In the two cover system followed in that tender process, the Tenderers were required to simultaneously submit two covers, viz., first cover containing the earnest money deposit and the details of their capability to undertake the tender, which will be opened first (called as `technical bid' in the common parlance), and the second cover containing the price quotation, which will be opened only if the Tenderer is found to be qualified to execute the tender (called as `price bid' in the common parlance). The time schedule for the aforesaid tender has been provided in the following table:-
| 1 | Sale period of tender document | 31.05.2019 upto 05.00 p.m. |
| 2 | Last Date & Time for submission of tender | 03.06.2019 upto 03.00 p.m. |
| 3 | Date & time of opening of Technical Bids | 03.06.2019 at 03.30 p.m. |
It would be necessary here to refer to clauses 4.1, 4.15.2 (l) and 4.17 of the tender document, which are extracted below:-
“4.1. General Instructions:
The Bidders are requested to go through the instructions, terms, conditions and specifications given in the Tender Document carefully. Omissions or failure to furnish any or all the required information in the Tender Document shall result in rejection of their bid.
...
4.15.2. Documents to be furnished in the Part – A Cover in sequence indicated below (Technical Bid):
...
(l) 3 Samples of School Bag in each size i.e, Small, Medium & Large. (Samples with any marks / printings will not be accepted).
...
4.17. Mode of Submissi
