The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and considering force majeure events in the context of tender processes.

JUDGMENT

(Prayers: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondent from opening the petitioners Bid and allotting any quantity for supply of Palmolein pursuant to the tender Notification bearing NIT No. BS3/ 7170/ 2022 dated 04.04.2022 TNCSC/ 22-23/ET- 01.

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Short E Tender by the 2nd respondent dated 21.04.2022 in Nit No. BS3/7170/2022 dated 04.04.2022 TNCSC/ 22-23 / ET-01 quash the same.

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Short E Tender by the 2nd respondent dated 21.04.2022 in Nit No. BS3/7170/2022 dated 04.04.2022 TNCSC/ 22-23 / ET-01 quash the same.)

Common Order:

1. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation issued notification dated 04.04.2022 for the supply of 2,00,000 nos. of one litre Fortified RBD Palmolein oil pouches. The tender date was fixed as 21.04.2022. The writ petitioners applied in response thereto. The specific stand of the petitioners is that the price bids were not opened on 21.04.2022 but only on 28.04.2022 at 04.58 p.m. In the interregnum period, ie., on 27.04.2022, the Government of Indonesia imposed a ban on export of Palmolein oil and other products. Citing this as a force majeure event, the petitioners seek nullification of the entire tender process.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.No.11951 of 2022 and the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.No.11645 of 2022 reiterated the contentions set out in the affidavits filed in support of the respective writ petitions and called upon this Court to invoke Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and allow these writ petitions.

3. Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that no case for interference has been made out. He would point out that the tender notification provides for arbitral remedy and that therefore the writ petitions are not maintainable. He also would contend that since the issue arises out of a commercial contract, this Court may not permit the petitioners to avail the public law remedy. He would also state that the respondents have not committed any illegality and that the offer made by the petitioners must be valid for a certain period and that the tenders have been opened well before the expiry of the offer period. He harped on the fact that the petitioners did not chose to send any communication before opening of the tenders. They chose to wait till the tenders were opened and only thereafter filed the present writ petitions. He characterised the petitioners as fence-sitters and called upon this Court to dismiss the writ petitions.

4. I carefully considered the rival contentions of both sides and went through the materials on record. Let me take up the preliminary objections first. It is true that Clause 23 of the tender notification provides for arbitral remedy. It is again true that the subject matter pertains to a commercial contract. The objections however stand overruled in view of the ratio laid down in “U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., -Vs- CG Power & Industrial Solutions Limited (2021) 6 S.C.C.15”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that the existence of an arbitration clause does not debar the court from entertaining a writ petition and that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be granted in a case arising out of a contract. Of course, the High Courts usually refrain from entertaining a writ petition which involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact which may require analysis of evidence of witnesses. But in this case, there are no disputed questions of fact. Since the respondent Corporation is a State instrumentality, and since the petitioners complain