W.P. (MD) No.11147 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON

: 15.07.2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 11.10.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. SWAMINATHAN

W.P. (MD) No.11147 of 2022

and

W.M.P. (MD) Nos.7981, 7982 & 9723 of 2022

V.Chellappan Pillai

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

Kanyakumari District.

2.The Additional Director of Panchayat,

Office of the District Collector,

Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

3.The Executive Officer,

Aralvaimozhi Town Panchayat,

8/51-Main Road, Aralvaimozhi – 629 301,

Kanyakumari District.

... Respondents

Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the

impugned Tender Notice in Na.Ka.No.110/2022/A1 dated 23.05.2022 and the

consequential impugned Tender Notice in Na.Ka.No.110/2022/A1 dated

09.05.2022 on the file of the 3^rd respondent and quash the same and further

directing the respondents to accept the technical bid of the petitioner in

pursuance of the tender Notice in Na.Ka.No.110/2022/A1 dated 31.03.2022 on

Page 1 of 8

W.P. (MD) No.11147 of 2022

the file of the 3^rd respondent.

For Petitioner

: Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai G.

For R1 and R2

: Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam

Government Advocate

For R3

: Mr.M.Siddharthan

Additional Government Pleader

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.

Page 2 of 8

W.P. (MD) No.11147 of 2022

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 3^rd condition and

Page 3 of 8

W.P. (MD) No.11147 of 2022

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