IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the authority's right to seek clarifications in the tender process and limited judicial intervention in such matters.

JUDGMENT :

C. KUMARAPPAN, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 21.04.2022 in W.P. No. 9046 of 2022.

1. “Tamil Nadu Textbook and Educational Services Corporation” [hereinafter shall be referred to as “Corporation”] has filed the instant writ appeal aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 9046 of 2022 dated 21.04.2022.

2. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ appeal is that, the Corporation has floated tender for the supply of socks for school children on Annual Rate contract basis for the year 2022-2023. The said tender notification was advertised on 20.12.2021 informing the time schedule that, Pre-Bid meeting on 04.01.2022 and the last date for submission of Tender was on 20.01.2022. It was also mentioned that the technical bid will also be opened on the same date. However, a Corrigendum was issued subsequently by extending the tender opening date.

3. In the tender form, the Corporation has directed the bidders to submit a declaration in respect of their status whether they have been blacklisted or not vide Annexure-VI. For ready reference, Annexure-VI is extracted hereunder:

“DECLARATION

I/We............................having the registered office at.............................hereby declare that the Firm/Company or its Partners/ Shareholders have not been blacklisted by Central/any State Government and its Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations.”

4. However, it appears that the bidder, qua the writ petitioner has not submitted declaration, and when it came to light to this appellant that the petitioner was blacklisted in the past, they have called for an explanation from the petitioner vide impugned notice dated 01.03.2022. In the said notice, the Corporation has mentioned about the confirmation of debarment qua blacklisting of the petitioner by the Jharkhand High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the Corporation/Appellant has requested the petitioner to provide their views on the above information.

5. Immediately, on receipt of such notice, the petitioner sent a reply on 03.03.2022 denying the statement made in the Corporation notice. Thereafter, immediately, they filed the impugned writ petition on 07.04.2022, praying for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner as qualified in the technical bid and for further direction to the Corporation to open and consider the financial bid of the petitioner.

6. The Writ Court, after considering the either side submission though has not granted any relief in favour of the petitioner, has found that the writ petition is maintainable against the impugned show cause notice and has also directed in paragraph 49 of the writ order that whenever any unsuccessful tenderer raises an objection, the Tender Accepting Authority has to dispose of those objections as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 48 hours. Only against these observations, the Corporation has preferred the instant writ appeal. As a matter of fact, the tender process has already been completed and awarded to some other bidder.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader would vehemently contend that the prayer of this petitioner seeking for a Mandamus to consider the petitioner as a qualified bidder in a technical bid cannot be sought for. It is also the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that under “The Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000” [hereinafter shall be referred to as “Tender Transparency Rule”] the Tender Issuing Authority is competent to seek bona fide clarification from the bidders under Rule 27(4) of the Tender Transparency Rule. Therefore, contended that filing of writ petition against the notice seeking bona fide clarification is not maintainable, and if such writ permitted, then it will hamper in providing welfare measures to the citizen, and would result in the danger of price rise. It was also the