Disposed

M/s. K.T.V. Health Foods Pvt. Ltd., v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation

Madras HC2 Dec 2022WP/32184/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to stop opening its bid due to delayed tender opening. Court recorded submissions that respondent awarded partial supply and no routine direction was needed. Petitioner discontinued suit; matter disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was discontinued by the petitioner and the matter was disposed of without any order as to costs.

M/s. K.T.V. Health Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs Tamil… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.32184 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.12.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.32184 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.31609 of 2022

¶7

M/s. K.T.V.Health Foods Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director, K.T.V.Kannan 7/3, Arul Nagar Salai, Kodungaiyur Chennai - 600 118.

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

¶10

Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Represented by its Managing Director No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk Chennai - 600 010.

¶11

.. Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from opening the petitioner's bid dated 21.11.2022 and allotting any quantity for supply of fortified RBD pursuant to the tender notification bearing NIT No.BS3/33300/2022 dated 09.11.2022 TNCSC/22-23/ET-45.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Masilamani Senior Counsel for Mr.Mani Sundargopal For Respondent : Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Selvaraj Additional Government Pleader

¶14

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

ORDER

¶16

W.P.No.32184 of 2022

¶17

Prayer sought for herein is for a writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondent from opening the petitioner's bid dated 21.11.2022 and allotting any quantity for supply of fortified RBD, pursuant to the Tender Notification bearing NIT No.BS3/33300/2022 dated 09.11.2022 TNCSC/22-23/ET-45.

¶18

When the writ petition came up for hearing at the admission stage, after hearing Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent, this Court, on 30.11.2022, passed the following orders:

¶19

“Tender in question has been opened today, according to Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General, which reveals that the L1 offered for Rs.99.99 per pouch weighing 910 grams or 1 litre of Palmolein oil. The petitioner is L3 offering for Rs.100.69.

¶20

2. However in respect of the total quantity to be supplied i.e. 2 crores pouches, the offer made by the petitioner is 1,20,00,000/-, the L1 offered 40,00,000/- and L2

¶21

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.32184 of 2022

¶23

offered 40,00,000/-. In this context, the L1 and L2 since offered to supply only 40,00,000/- pouches each, whether after negotiations, the L1 or L2 are going to shoulder the entire supply of 2 crores pouches and in that case the petitioner may not have any roll as he will be only L3. If L1 and L2 do not want to make more offer than what has been offered by them already by final tender i.e. supply of 40,00,000/- pouches each, then for the remaining supply of 1,20,00,000/- pouches whether the respondent is going to depend only the petitioner and in that case whether the respondent is ready to negotiate with the petitioner and in that case, of the petitioner comes forward to supply 1,20,00,000/- remaining pouches at the rate of L1 i.e. Rs.99.99 whether it is agreeable to the respondent to accept that supply from the petitioner. These issues can be decided and reported by the respondent before this Court by 02.12.2022 so that the further course of action in this matter can be taken by this Court.

¶24

3. Post the matter on 02.12.2022 immediately after admission.”

¶25

Pursuant to which, when the case is taken up for hearing today, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that, even though the petitioner is the L3, the

¶26

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.32184 of 2022

¶28

respondent, in view of the huge quantity expected to be supplied, awarded some portion of the contract for the petitioner for supplying of Palmolein pouches. So to that extent, even though the issue have been given a quietus by the respondent, still the petitioner is not able to cope up with the prices, since, it has been raised between the actual due date of the opening of the tender and on the date on which actually it has been opened. This kind of belated opening will always prejudice the tenderers like the petitioner, therefore, in future, that can be avoided, the learned Senior Counsel contended.

¶29

The said submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel is recorded and the petitioner also, in view of the aforesaid developments, does not want to pursue the case further and Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General also would submit that this kind of delay would happen in opening the tenders because various technical specifications made in the tenders should be fulfilled, which, for unforeseen reasons, could not be fulfilled. Hence, these kinds of delay would have occurred and therefore this need not be treated as a routine one and therefore no specific directions need to be given to the respondents.

¶30

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.32184 of 2022

¶32

By recording these submissions, this Court feels that this writ petition can

¶33

be disposed, accordingly it is disposed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.12.2022

Index: Yes/No

drm

The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk Chennai - 600 010.

¶39

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.32184 of 2022

¶41

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶42

(drm)

¶43

W.P.No.32184 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.31609 of 2022

¶44

02.12.2022

¶45

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/s. K.T.V. Health Foods Pvt. Ltd., v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. K.T.V. Health Foods Pvt. Ltd., v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Hari Babu Vs The District Revenue Officer

V.Ayyadurai Vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Central Board

S.Saravanan Vs The Regional Passport officer

Poquile @ Selvi Vs The Senior superintendent of

M.Jayabalan Vs The Senior Divisional commercial Manager

Dr.Priney K Vs The State of Tamil Nadu