Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1419 (MAD)

G. Kumara Pandian v. District Collector, Vellore

2011-03-14

K.CHANDRU

body2011
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same person. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.936/2011), the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to confirm the petitioner's bid as highest with reference to Item No.17 of the tender notice published vide District Gazette, Vellore dated 16.12.2010 by accepting the remaining 90% given vide sealed tender bid amount of Rs.9,45,000/-. 2. The writ petition was presented before this Court on 12.01.2011 and came up for admission on 19.01.2011. On that date, Mr.Thirugnanam, learned Special Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. Even before any counter could be filed, the petitioner has come up with the second writ petition (W.P.No.2771/2010), challenging an order dated 14.01.2011 passed by the District Collector. 3. In that order, the District Collector informed the petitioner that subsequent to the sealed tender auction conducted on 05.01.2011, the petitioner quoted the highest amount of Rs.35,25,000/-. Therefore, he was found declared as H1 in the auction. As per the conditions of auction, the petitioner should have deposited 10% of the amount quoted by him which worked out to Rs.3,52,500/-. But the petitioner did not deposit the said amount. Therefore, it was stated that as the petitioner has violated condition No.14 of the auction conditions, he was not eligible to have the auction confirmed in his favour. Not only his offer was rejected, but the tender amount along with the security deposit was also directed to be forfeited. It is this order which is under challenge in the second writ petition. 4. When that case came up on 04.02.2011, this Court directed the said matter to be tagged along with the earlier writ petition. 5. On notice, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 11.03.2011. In the counter affidavit, it was averred that at the time of tender, there were only two tenderers and among the tenderers, a public auction was called for. In the original tender application, the petitioner has quoted Rs.10,60,000/-, whereas the other tenderer has quoted Rs.3,33,000/-. Thereafter, in the auction, the petitioner has quoted the highest bid amount of Rs.35,25,000/-. Since he has quoted the highest amount among the persons who participated in the auction, his offer was confirmed. But the petitioner failed to deposit the 10% of the bid amount. Therefore, as per the Rules, his bid was cancelled. 6. Thereafter, in the auction, the petitioner has quoted the highest bid amount of Rs.35,25,000/-. Since he has quoted the highest amount among the persons who participated in the auction, his offer was confirmed. But the petitioner failed to deposit the 10% of the bid amount. Therefore, as per the Rules, his bid was cancelled. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire exercise by the District Collector was illegal and it is an afterthought. Even the impugned order came to be made only after the petitioner filed the writ petition. That could be verified from the postal cover under which the impugned order came to be despatched. According to the learned counsel, the despatch was made only on 25.01.2011, a full 10 days after the order was signed by the District Collector. Therefore, the attempt to make the petitioner to comply with the condition was unwarranted. He also submitted that even while the public auction was going on, the tender forms were opened and hence, there was no transparency in the tender floated by the respondents. 7. Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned Special Government Pleader produced a copy of Rule 5 (a)(vi)&(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, wherein, it was clearly stated that a deposit of 10% should be made immediately after the declaration of the result. The balance 90% should be made within one week failing which the forfeiture is available with the Government and therefore, they have exercised the said power. 8. In any event, either with reference to the lack of transparency or whether the District Collector has adopted a dubious procedure, this Court is not inclined to go into the said issues. A careful reading of the two writ petitions will clearly show that the petitioner having quoted a lower amount in the tender, subsequently quoted a higher amount in the public auction. When realising that the other tenderer has quoted a very low amount and he has been made to bear a heavy cost, the petitioner is seeking to resile from the very process, for which no one can be blamed except the petitioner himself. It is suffice to state that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the District Collector. It is suffice to state that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the District Collector. Assuming for a moment, if there was any lack of transparency in the tender cum auction quoted by the authorities, Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 provides for an appeal before the appellate authority. There is no reason why the petitioner did not approach the said authority. Since the petitioner has not approached the higher authorities and this Court having not found any irregularity in the order passed by the District Collector, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.