O R D E R

Thiru.Chellappan Pillai, President of a Self-Help Group, is the petitioner in this writ petition. The Aralvaimozhi Town Panchayat issued tender notification for supply of manpower to carry out the petition-mentioned works on outsourcing basis to implement solid waste management and allied works for the year 2022-2023. The petitioner applied in response to the notification. On account of the conditions set out in the tender notification, the writ petitioner's tender came to be rejected at the technical bid stage itself.

Challenging the rejection order, this writ petition has been filed.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contended that the rejection order must be set aside.

3.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, since the writ petitioner could not fulfill the technical conditions and was found to be ineligible, no interference is called for. The writ petitioner has filed additional affidavit as well as rejoinder.

4.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

5.One of the conditions is that the petitioner must have remitted EPF and ESI contributions for three preceding years from 2019-2020. Another condition is that the applicant must have an annual turnover of Rs.50 Lakhs for three years. The writ petitioner would contend that this must be understood to mean that the tenderer must be able to show total turnover of Rs.50 Lakhs for all the three years put together. If such an interpretation is accepted, the petitioner will fulfill such a condition. The respondents contend that this condition means that, for each year, the petitioner must have put in turnover of Rs.50 Lakhs.

6.Prima facie I feel that the writ petitioner's contention appears to be well founded. But, since the petitioner does not fulfill the 3rd condition and since this Court will not be justified in testing its validity at this stage, I am not able to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition. However, I grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Government under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (Act 43 of 1998). Of course, the said provision states that the appeal must have been filed within 10 days. But, considering the fact that the petitioner has been knocking the doors of this Court, if such an appeal is filed within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, it will be entertained without reference to limitation.

7.There is a saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If on account of the conditions stipulated by the local body, the field of competition has been restricted, it is the duty of the Government to revisit the conditions. Tamil Nadu Act 43 of 1998 contains the following recitals :

“An Act to provide for transparency in the public procurement and to regulate the procedure in inviting and accepting tenders and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

WHEREAS to maximise economy and efficiency in Government procurement;

AND WHEREAS to foster and encourage effective participation by tenderers in the process of tenders;

AND WHEREAS to promote healthy competition among tenderers;

AND WHEREAS to provide for fair and equitable treatment of all tenderers;

AND WHEREAS it is expedient to eliminate irregularities, interference and corrupt practices in the matters relating to tender processes by providing transparency in such matters;

AND WHEREAS to promote the integrity of the process of tenders and to promote fairness and public confidence in the processing of tenders by ensuring transparency in the procedure relating to procurement.”

8.The petitioner has alleged that, only to exclude the tenderers like the petitioner, restrictive conditions have been incorporated in the tender notification. If only one or two persons clear the technical stage and go up to the price bid st