A writ petition challenging a notification finalizing a tender was allowed after the respondent assured withdrawal of the impugned order. The High Court quashed the order regarding liquor shop licensing for bottle collection, granting liberty to proceed legally.
Impugned notification quashed; liberty granted to respondent to reprocess in accordance with law.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.07.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM WRIT PETITION NO.15837 OF 2018 AND W.M.P.NOS.18834 AND 18835 OF 2018
C.Dhanasekar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Manager
TASMAC Limited
Thiruvallur (East)
Chennai – 600 123
2.Duruva Traders
No.10, Madhavaram Milk Colony
Thiruvalluvar Nagar
Chennai – 600 051 ...Respondents
Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to
call for the records on the file of the first respondent in
Na.Ka.No.1170/A1/2018 dated 05.05.2018 and quash the same and
consequently direct the 1 st respondent to call for fresh tender
as per notification dated 19.04.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Bharathy
For Respondent : Mr.P.Arumugha Rajan
ORDER Heard Mr.D.Bharathy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Arumugha Rajan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an notification issued by the respondent finalizing a tender for collection of empty bottels and scrap items in the Bar attached
to the TASMAC Retail vending Shop No.107. This Court, on being prima facie satisfied that the impugned order is erroneous, granted an order of interim stay on 28.06.2018. The said order reads as follows:
“Heard Mr.D.Bharathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2.The petitioner participated in an auction conducted by the respondent-TASMAC for grant of licence to collect empty bottles and scrap items in the Bar attached to the TASMAC Retail Vending Shop No.107.
3.The petitioner's case is that the contract has been awarded in favour of the 2nd respondent much below the upset price fixed in the auction-cum-tender notice dated 19.04.2018.
4.It is pointed out that so far as the upset price, which was fixed for empty bottles was Rs.3.10 ps. whereas it has been awarded to the 2nd respondent at Rs.2.89Ps. Similarly, for waste paper per kilo, minimum upset price was Rs.8/-, whereas, the tender has been awarded for Rs.4.99Ps. Furthermore, in the impugned proceedings dated 05.05.2018, there is a reference that negotiation was held with the 2nd respondent. It is pointed out that the said negotiation is unnecessary under the terms of the auction-cum-tender notice. On the very same date, the 2nd respondent paid the security deposit and the receipt number is also left blank. Therefore, the petitioner has been able to prima facie satisfy this Court there has been arbitrary to exercise of power.
5.In the light of the same, the impugned proceedings shall remain stayed till the writ petition is heard and disposed of. Notice to the 1st respondent is accepted by Mr.P.Arumugarjan, learned Standing Counsel. Notice to the 2nd respondent through Court and privately returnable by 23.07.2018.
List for hearing on 23.07.2018.”
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The District Manager
TASMAC Limited
Thiruvallur (East)
Chennai – 600 123
+1cc to Mr.D.Bharathy, Advocate sr.no.49598
Writ Petition No.15837 of 2018 &
W.M.P.Nos.18834 and 18835 of 2018
svn(co)
nr 03/08/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned notification finalizing a tender for collection of empty bottles and scrap items should be quashed due to arbitrary exercise of power and deviation from upset prices.
Whether the lower court's interim stay can be lifted by administrative withdrawal of the impugned order.
C. Dhanasekar
District Manager, TASMAC Limited
Duruva Traders
T.S. Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
