High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a tender notification on grounds of varying EMD requirements and non-simultaneous bid opening. The Court held these issues did not affect the petitioner's interest or transparency requirements.
Writ petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.12.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W.P.No.32477 of 2017
and
WMP Nos.35797 and 35798 of 2017
Yuvaraj Choudry ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Transport Secretary,
Namakkal Kavingar Malizai,
4th Floor, St.George Fort, Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Limited,
3/137, Salamedu,
Villupuram-602. ...Respondents
Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records pertaining to the notification of the second respondent in tender form dated 30.11.2017 issued in website for public auction/tender for S.No.8 and 9 in TNSTC(VPM) Motel Complex at Mamandur, Kancheepuram District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar for Mr.E.D.Sethupathi For Respondents : Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader
2
ORDER
Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.
petitioner and Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2.The petitioner is aggrieved against the tender notification dated 30.11.2017, more particularly, in respect of items at Serial Nos.8 and 9. According to the petitioner, the EMD fixed for items 8 and 9 varies as Rs.75,000/- and Rs.50,000 respectively, even though the nature of work and extent of the area to be allotted to execute such work are one and the same. The next contention raised by the petitioner is that the cover containing the commercial bid is not proposed to be opened simultaneously along with the qualification bid and therefore, there is no transparency. I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to raise both the grounds in the present writ petition, as they are not in any way affecting the interest of the petitioner. If he is willing to participate, the difference in EMD quantum will not stand in his way as the EMD can always either be refunded or adjusted in accordance with the terms of the contract. In sofar as the
3
other contention is concerned, needless to say that only when the petitioner and other tenderers are qualified in the technical/qualification bid, the question of opening their respective commercial bid would arise . Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in raising both the contentions to quash the impugned tender notification. Accordingly, I find no reasons to entertain this writ petition and thus, the same is dismissed. No costs. The
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 13.12.2017 Speaking/Non Speaking Index : Yes / No vri To 1.The Transport Secretary, Namakkal Kavingar Malizai, 4th Floor, St.George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, 3/137, Salamedu, Villupuram-602.
4
K.RAVICHADNRABAABU,J. vri
W.P.No.32477 of 2017
13.12.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the variation in EMD quantum for identical work nature justifies quashing the tender notification.
Whether the non-simultaneous opening of the commercial bid affects transparency entitling the petitioner to quash the tender.
Yuvaraj Choudry
The Transport Secretary, Namakkal Kavingar Malizai
The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited
K Ravichandrabaabu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
