Allowed

M.Vadivel v. The Chennai Metropolitan

Madras HC12 Dec 2018WP/3922/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged discrimination in award of water tanker lorries contracts by the CMWSSB. The Court held tenderers L1 to L9 who matched the lowest rate must be treated as one category and allotted work based on vehicle manufacturing year.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to consider all tenderers L1 to L9 as one category and award contracts based on vehicle manufacturing year from 2017.

M.Vadivel Vs The Chennai Metropolitan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.12.2018

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P. 3922 of 2018

¶4

and W.M.P.s 4818 & 4819 of 2018

¶5

M.Vadivel

¶6

N.Vinayakam 3. C.Tharmaraj

¶7

R.Elumalai

¶8

K.Vadivel

¶9

C.Sethuraman

¶10

U.Selvam 8. D.Manimegalai

¶11

R.Dinesh Kumar 10. M.Vajaravelu 11. R.Ranjith

¶12

... Petitioners Vs

¶13

The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, rep. by its Managing Director, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.

¶14

The Purchase Manager, The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, rep. by its Managing Director, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.

¶15

P.S.Sundaram,

¶16

K.Anandhan,

¶17

K.Padmanabhan,

¶18

(R3 to R5 impleaded as per order dt.12/03/2018 made in WMP.6729/2018)

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from discriminating the petitioners' water tanker lorries by stopping the allotment of work without there being any reasonable or logical classification of the water lorries enrolled with the respondent for effecting supply of the drinking water.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sai Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Nalliyappan for R3 to R5

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Writ Petition has been filed forbearing the respondents from discriminating the petitioner while allotting water tanker lorries to supply water by the 1^st respondent Board.

¶25

The case of the petitioners is that the 1^st respondent Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) called for tenders for hiring water tanker lorries for transporting water to the general public. After finalisation of tender, the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, quoted at Rs.369/-. The other tenderers, who have quoted for higher amount have been classified as L2 to L9 as per the offer made by them. Subsequently, L2 to L9 tenderers were directed to match the offer made by L1, in order to get the contract from the respondents 1 and 2. The petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 to 11 are classified as L2 to L9, and they have matched the offer made by L1. Subsequently, they were also awarded contract for transporting the water. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that, even though they have also accepted the offer of L1, they are discriminated, and the petitioners' lorries were not engaged by the Board for supplying water. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners.

¶26

Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that as per the tender conditions, the tenderer should be evaluated as per the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and the vehicles will be engaged in the ascending order of year of manufacture viz., from 2017. The lowest rate quoted in the tender will be considered for awarding contract, and the willingness will be asked for from the other participated tenderers for accepting rate offered by L1. Once the other tenderers viz., L2 to L9 accepted the offer of L1, the Board have to award contract to all the tenderers and they cannot make any discrimination.

¶27

Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, as per the tender condition, the tender will be awarded to the lowest tenderer and on the willingness of the other tenderers, the work will be allotted to them after exhausting the lowest tenderer viz., L1. As the petitioners were classified as L2 to L9, they will be awarded the contract only after exhausting the lowest tenderer L1, and they cannot claim that they should be considered along with L1.

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records carefully.

¶30

The award of work order is governed by clause (2) of the terms and conditions of tender schedule, which reads as follows:-

¶31

“The tender will be evaluated as per the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and Rules thereunder Vehicles in the descending order of year of manufacture viz., from 2017, 2016, 2015......to 2010 will be considered. The lowest rate quoted by the Tenderer will be considered for award of contract. Willingness will be asked for from the other participated Tenderers for accepted rate. Those who have offered their willingness for the accepted rate will be selected in the above order.”

¶32

A close reading of the above conditions, it is clear that the tender will be evaluated based on the vehicle owned by the tenderers in the descending order of manufacture from the year 2017 to 2010, and the lowest rate quoted by the tenderer will be considered for awarding of contract. Thereafter, the willingness will be ascertained from the other persons, who have participated in the tender for accepting the lowest rate quoted by the tenderer, and those who have expressed their willingness to accept the lowest rate will also be considered for awarding work based on the year of manufacture of the vehicle owned by the tenderer. Thus, once the other tenderers expressed their willingness to accept the offer made by the lowest tenderer, all the tenderers should be treated as one category and work order should be given based on the year of manufacture of vehicle as per the above tender condition, and they cannot discriminate between the tenderers.

¶33

In the above circumstances, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider all the tenderers viz., L1 to L9 as one category and award the contract work as per the year of manufacturing of the vehicle from 2017. This order is applicable only to the tenderers, who are classified as L1 to L9. So far as the non-tenderers are concerned, they cannot claim any right on par with the other tenderers and the 1^st respondent Board can engage the services of non-tenderers after exhausting the tenderers, viz., L1 to L9 if their service so required.

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶38

//True Copy//

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

¶41

The Managing Director,
The Chennai Metropolitan Water
Supply & Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet,
Chennai-600 002.
2. The Purchase Manager,
The Chennai Metropolitan Water
Supply & Sewerage Board,
rep. by its Managing Director,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet,
Chennai-600 002.
+1cc to Mr.N.Ramesh, Advocate, S.R.No.85802
+1cc to Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.85967
W.P. 3922 of 2018
and
W.M.P.s 4818 & 4819
of 2018
MG(CO)
GSP(14/02/2019)

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Vadivel v. The Chennai Metropolitan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vadivel v. The Chennai Metropolitan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ayyadurai, S/o.Krishnan Vs The Tamil Nadu State

S.Vaikundarajan Vs the Union of India

M/s.India Infoline Finance Ltd. Vs The Regional Transport Officer

K.Subramani Vs The Collector

Kalavathi Vs The District Collector

K.S.Ganesan Vs The District Collector