JUDGMENT :- 1. The decision of the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu (for short, 'the SDAT') to consider and approve the invitation of Expression of Interest from private/corporate sector to use synthetic Tennis Courts at Mogappair owned by them, in its Agenda No.23, dated 13.11.2007 and the consequential order dated 12.2.2008, are challenged in this Writ Petition, seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to finalise the process of entering into Memorandum of Understanding to maintain the Tennis Courts at Sports Complex at Mogappair based on the offers received in pursuance of calling for Expression of Interest, dated 11.9.2007. 2. Facts: M/s.Rankers Tennis Academy, represented by its General Secretary, the petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-Academy), in their pleadings stated that they are interested in promotion of international level of Tennis in Chennai and had been initiated by experienced Tennis players and coaches along with their experience in the field. Accordingly, they have formed to produce quality Tennnis players by offering excellent coaching. According to them, the first respondent which is a body under the Government of Tamil Nadu, more specifically under the Ministry of Sports, is formed with an object to develop sports activities in the State of Tamil Nadu, and is having many Stadiums throughout the State, particularly in Chennai for all the outdoor and indoor games such as Athletes, Tennis, Swimming, Hockey, Football, etc. Apart from Tennis Stadium at Nungambakkam, the first respondent-SDAT developed a Tennis Stadium with two Tennis Courts at 3/15, Jaswant Nagar, Mogappair West, Chennai-600 037 and spent huge amounts to lay synthetic Tennis Courts in order to provide facilities to the players on par with the international level. The maintenance of the synthetic Tennis Courts involves huge amount and as such, the first respondent-SDAT was looking for sports academies and sports entrepreneurs to maintain the Tennis Courts under their control. 2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that during the year 2005, the first respondent-SDAT called for offers to maintain synthetic Tennis Courts through private sports academies and accordingly, one Prince Tennis Academy was selected for maintenance of the Tennis Courts and Stadium. However, even before a proper Memorandum of Understanding could be entered, the said Prince Tennis Academy entered into the Stadium and was functioning in the Stadium and put up infrastructure without any authority. However, even before a proper Memorandum of Understanding could be entered, the said Prince Tennis Academy entered into the Stadium and was functioning in the Stadium and put up infrastructure without any authority. The petitioner understands that initially, the said Prince Tennis Academy was not even paying any amount to the Government and had totally neglected the maintenance of the Tennis Courts. Therefore, the first respondent-authority decided to hand over the maintenance and the development of the Tennis Courts to some other sports academy by calling for public offers. 2.2. While so, the first respondent, vide their advertisement dated 11.9.2007, called for Expression of Interest from various sports clubs, associations, sport bodies, entrepreneurs, corporate groups, trusts, etc., for augmentation of the facilities at two synthetic Tennis Courts at Mogappair and also invited suggestions for generation of income as well as to provide training to the players. The said offer was published, vide internet, which specified that the last lade for submitting the proposals to the Member Secretary of the first respondent was before 4 p.m. on 28.9.2007. The petitioner submitted their proposals on 28.9.2007 and many other sports clubs and academies also submitted such proposals. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent scrutinised the proposals and called for discussions with the selected number of persons including the petitioner. Accordingly, the first respondent-SDAT, by their letter dated 26.10.2007 called upon the petitioner to attend a discussion to be held on 30.10.2007. The petitioner-Academy, represented by its General Secretary, attended the discussion and elaborated about their proposals on the development of the Stadium as well as idea of encouraging the players in Tennis. 2.3. The deliberations of such discussion were placed before the Executive Committee meeting of the first respondent on 13.11.2007 and thereafter, since nothing was heard from the first respondent-authority, the petitioner-Academy was constrained to file W.P.No.35536 of 2007 on the file of this Court, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to finalise the proposal as per their advertisement dated 11.9.2007. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 3.1.2008, directing the petitioner to submit an application putting forth their case, within a period of one week and further, this Court directed the first respondent to pass orders within a period of two weeks therefrom. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 3.1.2008, directing the petitioner to submit an application putting forth their case, within a period of one week and further, this Court directed the first respondent to pass orders within a period of two weeks therefrom. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application to the first respondent, and the first respondent passed the present impugned order informing the petitioner that the Executive Meeting during its meeting on 13.11.2007, decided to extend the period for maintaining the Tennis Courts by the second respondent. 2.4. The petitioner-Academy made an application to the first respondent under the Right to Information Act, seeking for the details of the decision taken by the Executive Committee and other particulars in respect of awarding the contract for maintenance to the second respondent. The first respondent furnished the entire documents pertaining to grant of permission to maintain the Tennis Courts to the second respondent and the decision arrived at by the Executive Committee to extend the same to the second respondent. From the records furnished by the first respondent, the petitioner-Academy understands that the second respondent which had been occupying the Tennis Stadium from the year 2005, illegally, without a valid Memorandum of Understanding, which is said to have been extended further without mentioning any period, and the records further showed that the second respondent originally paid the amount for taking over maintaining the Tennis Courts and thereafter, for nearly one year, had not paid the amounts. However, the second respondent, on 5.12.2006, paid the entire amount for a period of one year and thereafter continued to pay some amount under the score of remitting 65% of the profit earned by the second respondent, which amounts to Rs.8,350/- per month. 2.5. At that juncture, the Executive Committee of the first respondent, in the meeting held on 12.4.2007, decided to call for Expression of Interest from sports entrepreneurs for maintaining the Tennis Courts and establishing gymnasium in the District Sports Complex and advertised the same in their web-site. In response to the Expression of Interest called for by the first respondent, the petitioner and nine other persons including the second respondent, offered their suggestions and offers to use/maintain the Tennis Courts. In response to the Expression of Interest called for by the first respondent, the petitioner and nine other persons including the second respondent, offered their suggestions and offers to use/maintain the Tennis Courts. The petitioner offered the maximum amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to be paid for taking over the Tennis Courts and the second respondent-M/s.Prince Tennis Academy, which has quoted Rs.10,000/- per month, has been placed far below the petitioner-Academy and other persons. 2.6. However, the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 13.11.2007 in Agenda No.23, without proper consideration, decided to allow the second respondent to continue to maintain the Tennis Courts, which glaringly shows that the first respondent is losing huge amount, besides the fact being that the action of the first respondent amounts to violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (for short, 'the Act'). There was no proper Memorandum of Understanding between the first and second respondents. But the second respondent has put up the infrastructure without authority from the first respondent. The Memorandum of Understanding which has not been signed by the first respondent, has been orally extended, which is impermissible in law, more so, when the nature of property is a State largesse. 2.7. Therefore, the said decision is contrary to law and the petitioner has no other alternative remedy, except to approach this Court to file this Writ Petition, challenging the above proceedings on the ground that the State of Tamil Nadu allotted funds for the purpose of putting up various Stadiums, for all the games and have upgraded the Stadiums on par with the international Stadiums and that the public money is spent on establishment of synthetic Tennis Courts, and therefore, the action of the first respondent in giving away the Tennis Courts to be maintained and use by the second respondent, is without valid Memorandum of Understanding, and hence, the oral extension is arbitrary and opposed to fair play of justice and against the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the action of the first respondent will cause irreparable loss and untold hardship to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner approached this Court to quash the above proceedings. 3. Therefore, the action of the first respondent will cause irreparable loss and untold hardship to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner approached this Court to quash the above proceedings. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating inter-alia as follows: The petitioner is not entitled to any remedy, much less the remedy of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as prayed for and denying the averments stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. According to the respondents, the two synthetic Tennis Courts established, were given for maintenance to M/s.Prince Academy on the basis of the best terms quoted by them than that of the other two, Thiru.S.Mahendran, Tennis Coach and Thiru.Sathyaram, Tennis Coach. They were permitted to maintain the two synthetic Tennis Courts and to develop two clay Courts and not to construct any structure. 65% of the profit is collected by the SDAT from the second respondent-M/s.Prince Academy, since November 2005. 3.1. In order to know the takers of various SDAT activities and infrastructure facilities and as per the Executive Committee's resolution, dated 12.4.2007, as a trial, an Expression of Interest was called for by the SDAT. The Expression of Interest was just to understand the mood of the public interested in the maintenance so as to plan for various sports activities in the city and the same is not binding on the first respondent and by doing so, no right will accrue in favour of the petitioner on its participation in such Expression of Interest. 3.2. The participants who had submitted their proposals/interest, were called for discussion on 30.10.2007 and in consequence to that, the matter has been placed before the Executive Committee of SDAT on 13.11.2007 and it was decided to permit M/s.Prince Tennis Academy to maintain the two synthetic Tennis Courts for the time being and complete their obligations as per the Memorandum of Understanding. However, in the event of non-compliance, action be taken to cancel the existing Memorandum of Understanding after following due procedure and appropriate agency be selected to run the SDAT synthetic Tennis Courts at Mogappair. Hence, as per the decision of Executive Committee, M/s.Prince Tennis Academy had been permitted to maintain the two synthetic Tennis Courts for the time being. 3.3. However, in the event of non-compliance, action be taken to cancel the existing Memorandum of Understanding after following due procedure and appropriate agency be selected to run the SDAT synthetic Tennis Courts at Mogappair. Hence, as per the decision of Executive Committee, M/s.Prince Tennis Academy had been permitted to maintain the two synthetic Tennis Courts for the time being. 3.3. In order to keep the synthetic Tennis Court functional, the SDAT has selected the second respondent to maintain the ground and to offer best training to the budding talents and to train the upcoming Tennis players in addition to conduct of competitions. M/s.Prince Academy has been training the children and have conducted several competitions. Further, M/s.Prince Academy fulfilled their quotation dated 22.8.2005 partially by constructing administration block, toilets and two clay courts and the purpose for which Mogappair Tennis Courts were established, are being fulfilled and many talents are being trained regularly in these Courts. 3.4. The SDAT is honestly undertaking all the sports activities in a befitting manner and all the Government sports schemes are being implemented transparently and the infrastructure work is being carried out adhering to the procedures. The Executive Committee of SDAT resolved to entrust the maintenance of the Tennis Courts with the second respondent, which also has competed in the Expression of Interest. However, few more conditions were also added in order to safeguard the interest of the SDAT. There is no inaction on the part of the SDAT and the Tennis Courts are being maintained well and a large number of trainees are undergoing training regularly and there has also been achievements. 3.5. Though M/s.Prince Academy is maintaining the synthetic Tennis Courts, they have given their representation, vide their letter dated 28.9.2007 to SDAT and also participated in the Expression of Interest. The Executive Committee of SDAT decided to leave the maintenance with M/s.Prince Academy itself for few more months, as they have partly fulfilled their commitments. Therefore, the action of the first respondent is in line with the required provisions of law and there is no violation of the same. 3.6. The SDAT is fully satisfied with the present maintenance of the synthetic Tennis Courts by M/s.Prince Academy, which is also one among the Academies which have sent Expression of Interest and the SDAT has accordingly permitted the said body to continue with the maintenance of the Tennis Courts. 3.6. The SDAT is fully satisfied with the present maintenance of the synthetic Tennis Courts by M/s.Prince Academy, which is also one among the Academies which have sent Expression of Interest and the SDAT has accordingly permitted the said body to continue with the maintenance of the Tennis Courts. It was further felt by the Executive Committee that it was not necessary for calling of the tenders for the maintenance of the Tennis Courts, as already the second respondent is maintaining the same. The first respondent-SDAT therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. The second respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, in which, inter-alia, it is stated as under: In the year 2005, proposals were invited by the first respondent for maintenance and upkeep of the two synthetic Tennis Courts belonging to the first respondent at Mogappair and it is learnt that many proposals were received. The second respondent also submitted their proposals. The first respondent, after deliberating the proposals received, felt that the proposal submitted by the second respondent was the best and therefore, by proceedings dated 31.10.2005, granted the contract for maintaining and upkeep of the two synthetic Tennis Courts to the second respondent for a period of five years. This also envisaged extension for a further period of five more years and there was a specific provision empowering the second respondent to put up additional facilities in the complex. Pursuant to the order, the second respondent took possession of the Courts and put up several new additional facilities such as two additional courts, changing rooms, rest rooms and bath rooms, flood lighting and electrification (provision given), bore-well, fencing all around, sheds for watching matches and drainage facilities and other amenities. The second respondent incurred about Rs.7 lakhs for provision of the above additional facilities. 4.1. The second respondent is currently maintaining the Tennis Courts and as per the terms of agreement, though only 50% was payable to the first respondent, from January 2006, the second respondent is paying 65% of the profits to the first respondent. The amounts are being paid regularly without any default. There has been good response from students and with the encouragement and support of the people, well wishers and sponsors, the State level tournaments are being conducted in the complex. The second respondent mainly conducts coaching for boys and girls in the age group of 6-14 years. The amounts are being paid regularly without any default. There has been good response from students and with the encouragement and support of the people, well wishers and sponsors, the State level tournaments are being conducted in the complex. The second respondent mainly conducts coaching for boys and girls in the age group of 6-14 years. Free coaching is also given to poor and under-privileged students. Some of the students have shown excellent growth and a couple of them are currently top ranked players in the boys and girls circuit. The activities of the second respondent came in for appreciation and praise by one and all. The second respondent employed qualified coaches, markets and other boys for coaching and maintenance of the Tennis Courts. 4.2. The second respondent denies the averment that they were not paying any amount to the first respondent and therefore, the first respondent wanted to go in for Expression of Interest, which is false and baseless. It appears that the first respondent, in order to know the response of the public to its activities and infrastructure facilities available in the particular complex, called for Expression of Interest. This was only to know the mood of the public and to get suggestions for possible improvement. The petitioner- Academy submitted their proposal to the Expression of Interest. When the second respondent came to know about the calling for Expression of Interest, they sent a detailed letter on 21.9.2007 to the first respondent pointing out that the contract entered into by the first respondent with the second respondent was very much subsisting. They also pointed out that considerable amounts had been spent for provision of infrastructure and other facilities and the activities of the second respondent had been appreciated by all people. 4.3. The matter was placed before the Executive Committee in November 2007, which on a detailed consideration, felt that the second respondent was keeping up their obligations as per the contract and it was therefore decided by the first respondent that the second respondent should be permitted to continue to maintain the Tennis Courts in accordance with the contract already in force. 4.4. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 3.1.2008 with a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner. 4.4. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 3.1.2008 with a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner. On the representation made, the first respondent, by order dated 12.2.2008, informed the petitioner that it had been decided to continue the existing contract with the second respondent. The said order was passed as a sequel to the Executive Committee meeting held in November 2007, when it was decided that the contract with the second respondent was progressing satisfactorily and it was not necessary to go ahead with the Expression of Interest. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that the second respondent has not been paying the agreed amounts to the first respondent, is incorrect and false. The second respondent being a registered society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, their accounts are audited by qualified Chartered Accountants and therefore, in any event, it is not for the petitioner to make any complaint regarding the said aspect. The petitioner is a third party and not privity to the contract between the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner is devoid of merits. 4.5. The petitioner has not understood the scope of the Expression of Interest and has wrongly presumed that having applied pursuant to the Expression of Interest, a right had accrued on them and has approached this Court on presumptions and assumptions. The Expression of Interest has been called for by the first respondent only to elicit the ideas as to how the talent can be spotted and high quality Tennis players nurtured and also for suggestions how the facilities already available can be improved. The contract awarded to the second respondent was after examining the proposals submitted by them along with the other applicants and the second respondent was permitted to develop and maintain two Tennis Courts based on the contract issued by the first respondent on 31.10.2005. Therefore, the second respondent has put up several facilities and developed the Tennis Courts by providing excellent amenities. Therefore, it is on that basis the second respondent requested that they be allowed to complete the first 5 year contract period in terms of the agreement and further extensions could be made after observing the performance. 4.6. Therefore, the second respondent has put up several facilities and developed the Tennis Courts by providing excellent amenities. Therefore, it is on that basis the second respondent requested that they be allowed to complete the first 5 year contract period in terms of the agreement and further extensions could be made after observing the performance. 4.6. The Executive Committee felt that in the circumstances, continuance of the existing contract with the second respondent would be the best option and therefore, it was decided that the second respondent be asked to maintain the Tennis Courts pursuant to the award of contract made earlier in the year 2005. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the same should be broken and a new contract awarded. The second respondent invested huge sums of money on infrastructure, coaching and maintenance on the belief that the second respondent would continue to maintain the Tennis Courts for ten years and all plans have been made on that basis. Any interruption thereof will greatly prejudice the second respondent and demoralise the employees and students and accordingly, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder as below: The first and second respondents are acting in hand-in-glove with each other. There is no sanction of the Executive Committee of the first respondent to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the second respondent. There is no valid document to suggest that there is a Memorandum of Understanding in between the first and second respondents. The second respondent, even before entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the first respondent, has illegally taken over the subject property. The second respondent, although claims that they have been depositing the sums due and payable to the first respondent, the documents received by the petitioner would substantiate that for the initial period of one year, there was no payment to the first respondent by the second respondent. As per the communication issued by the first respondent calling upon for Expression of Interest in the year 2007, the petitioner was the front-runner and in order to tactically help the second respondent, the first respondent, for obvious reasons, has given a go-by to the Rules and Regulations in order to somehow permit the second respondent to have illegal control over the subject property. 5.1. 5.1. Although the first respondent is a governmental authority working for the development of a welfare society and in order to promote and develop sports related activities, the first respondent has not chosen to act in accordance with law and the statutory guidelines as per which governmental authorities are supposed to act. The entire process adopted by the first respondent permitting the second respondent to take over the subject property, is shrouded in mystery and smacks of arbitrariness. Although the first respondent had called for Expression of Interest as per the Executive Committee's Resolution dated 12.4.2007, it is now sought to be made out as if the same was a trial run. The said averment has deliberately been made by the first respondent in order to continue the second respondent to illegally enrich themselves by misusing the subject property with an intention to deprive the petitioner-Academy which has submitted the best proposal among the parties who have evinced interest. 5.2. The petitioner has raised valid grounds with supporting materials, and the first respondent, by their bare denial, cannot hide or prevent the petitioner from questioning the illegalities committed by the respondents. It is particularly denied that there is any transparency in the entire process adopted by the first respondent. Admittedly, there is no Executive Committee meeting minutes authorising any person to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the second respondent at any point of time from 2005. The minutes of the Executive Committee meeting, dated 30.12.2005 goes to prove that the decision with reference to the handing over of the subject property to the second respondent has been deferred. Such being the admitted position, the subsequent act of the Executive Committee proceeding on the basis of the non-existent Memorandum of Understanding and purported sanction of the Executive Committee, would not in any manner improve the case of the respondents, and on the contrary, it would prove that the first respondent has not acted in their best interests. Mere adding of few more conditions, would not in any way improve the case of the respondents, more particularly, when the offer given by the petitioner was by and large several times more than the second respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for allowing the Writ Petition with exemplary costs. 6. Mere adding of few more conditions, would not in any way improve the case of the respondents, more particularly, when the offer given by the petitioner was by and large several times more than the second respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for allowing the Writ Petition with exemplary costs. 6. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his submissions, has strenuously contended that the first respondent is an authority under the State and therefore, while dealing with the public property, it is incumbent upon the first respondent to follow the Rules and Regulations and there should be transparency in the public tenders and they are under the obligation not to cause any violation of the tenders, taking into consideration the Schedule to the Act. Therefore, the decision of the first respondent and the impugned proceedings, are against the rule of law. He further contended that the order passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.35536 of 2007, on 3.1.2008, has not been scrupulously followed and complied with by the first respondent in right perspective. In the said case, this Court observed that the stand of the respondents was that a meeting was convened and the decision had been taken and that the complaint has been made by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner's representation has not been considered, and only in such circumstances, a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the Resolution of the first respondent, dated 12.4.2007, deciding to award the contract to the second respondent, suffers from non-application of mind and the action is arbitrary and unreasonable, as no public authority can act against the interest of the State while awarding the contract. 7. On the other hand, Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner has not challenged the Resolution passed by the SDAT, dated 13.11.2007, rather, only the communication of the authority has been challenged. He also submitted that the first respondent, in the meeting held on 13.11.2007, has decided not to proceed in pursuance of the Expression of Interest. He also submitted that the first respondent, in the meeting held on 13.11.2007, has decided not to proceed in pursuance of the Expression of Interest. Therefore, no cause of action at all has been accrued to the petitioner, when the petitioner has not acquired any interest in the matter of running the Tennis Court at Mogappair, Chennai, nor had the petitioner been called upon to submit their offer. It is his further contention that the Expression of Interest was called for only to understand the mood of the public interested in the maintenance so as to plan for various sports activities of the State. When the participants have submitted their proposal/interest, they were called for discussion on 13.11.2007 and consequent to the same, the matter has been placed before the Executive Committee and it was decided to permit the second respondent to maintain the Tennis Court and therefore, the decision cannot be found fault with. He also submitted that there is no violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, as the tender process itself was not invoked. Learned counsel for the first respondent in his last limb of arguments, submitted that the meeting of the Executive Committee and the procedures, had been scrupulously followed and there is no provision under the bye- laws to get the signatures of all the members present in the meeting. The decision of the Executive Committee of the first respondent is in accordance with law and also the bye-laws of the first respondent. 8. Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel for the second respondent in his arguments, contended that as per the letter dated 31.10.2005 of the first respondent, the second respondent has been maintaining the two Tennis Courts, which is to be followed for ten years from 31.10.2005, subject to the review of the performance by the first respondent after five years. Further, the second respondent has spent huge amounts for developmental activities including the infrastructure facilities. He further stated that the award of the contract is not challenged or questioned by the petitioner and the petitioner has only sought for quashing the proceedings dated 13.11.2007 and the consequential order dated 12.2.2008. There is existence of contract given by the first respondent based on the Executive Committee's decision. He further stated that the award of the contract is not challenged or questioned by the petitioner and the petitioner has only sought for quashing the proceedings dated 13.11.2007 and the consequential order dated 12.2.2008. There is existence of contract given by the first respondent based on the Executive Committee's decision. The Expression of Interest invited by the first respondent is only to get the ideas and suggestions for maintenance of the Tennis Court and not as a tender and therefore, merely by sending their proposal, the petitioner cannot claim any vested right. He further stated that the decision of the first respondent cannot be found fault with and any interruption of the second respondent's contract will greatly prejudice the right and demoralise the employees and students. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records and the relevant provisions of law. 10. A panoramic view of the case would reveal that the SDAT is an authority under the Government of Tamil Nadu, having its registered office, situated in Chennai. The said authority has been established with the objects of promoting and developing the sports activities and to formulate and implement plans for the promotion of sports and to improve the standards of sports and games in the State of Tamil Nadu, in keeping with the Sports Policy of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of India; implementing the existing schemes for the promotion of sports and games and for improving the standards in the State in sports and games, as may be entrusted to it by the Government of Tamil Nadu or other bodies from time to time; planing, developing, constructing, acquiring, taking over, managing, maintaining and utilising sports infrastructure, sports facilities and ancillary buildings, play-fields, stadium, land, etc., in the State of Tamil Nadu. 11. The SDAT is governed by the Memorandum of Association and the bye-laws framed thereunder. The jurisdiction of the said authority shall extend over the whole of Tamil Nadu. The Member Secretary of the SDAT is an authority appointed as such by the Government of Tamil Nadu. 11. The SDAT is governed by the Memorandum of Association and the bye-laws framed thereunder. The jurisdiction of the said authority shall extend over the whole of Tamil Nadu. The Member Secretary of the SDAT is an authority appointed as such by the Government of Tamil Nadu. In the bye-laws, the composition of the authority, the membership and term of office, register of members, meetings of the authority, powers of the authority, powers of the President, powers of the Vice-Presidents, powers and functions of the Member Secretary, composition of the Executive Committee, meetings of the Executive Committee, powers and functions of the Executive Committee, funds of the authority, bankers, auditors, finance of the authority, annual report, seal of the authority, alteration or extension of the purpose of the authority, etc., are all comprehensively provided. Therefore, SDAT being the authority of the State, is governed by the Memorandum of Association and the bye-laws and the guidelines provided therein by the State of Tamil Nadu. 12. In the bye-laws of the SDAT, it is extensively provided as to how to establish, maintain, amalgamate and/or close institutions, units, centres, branches, stadia, offices, sports facilities, residential areas, buildings, etc., thereby, giving power of the authority, namely the first respondent, to establish and maintain the stadium and sports facilities etc. It is seen that the first respondent, which is a body, at the time of framing the bye-laws, was under the control of the Ministry of Education and now, it is under the control of the Ministry of Sports of the Government of Tamil Nadu. 13. A circumspection of the facts, reveals that the first respondent is having many stadiums through the State in their control, particularly in Chennai for all the outdoor and indoor games, such as Athletes, Tennis, Swimming, Hockey, Football, etc. Apart from the Tennis Stadium at Nungambakkam, the first respondent has developed a Tennis Stadium with two Tennis Courts at 3/15, Jaswant Nagar, Mogappair West, Chennai-600 37 and they had spent amounts to lay synthetic Tennis Courts in order to provide facilities to the players on par with the international level. Since the maintenance of the synthetic Tennis Courts involves huge amount, the first respondent was looking for sports academies and sports entrepreneurs to maintain the Tennis Courts under its control. 14. Since the maintenance of the synthetic Tennis Courts involves huge amount, the first respondent was looking for sports academies and sports entrepreneurs to maintain the Tennis Courts under its control. 14. Initially, during the year 2005, the first respondent called for offers to maintain the synthetic Tennis Courts through private sports academies and accordingly, the second respondent was selected for maintenance of the Tennis Courts and Stadium. It is contended that even before granting the order to the second respondent, the second respondent entered into the stadium and put up infrastructure without any authority. It is also claimed by the petitioner that the second respondent has not even paid any amount to the Government and totally neglected the maintenance of the Tennis Court, but however, this has been regulated in course of time and at one point of time, the second respondent paid the amount. 15. While so, the first respondent made an advertisement on 11.9.2007 and called for Expression of Interest from various sports clubs, associations, sport bodies, entrepreneurs, corporate groups, trusts, etc., for augmentation of the facilities at the two synthetic Tennis Courts at Mogappair and also invited suggestions for generation of income as well as to provide training to players. The said offer was also published, vide internet, which specified the last date for submitting the proposals to the Member Secretary, of the first respondent-SDAT, as before 4 p.m. on 28.9.2007 and the petitioner-Academy submitted their proposals on 28.9.2007. Thereafter, the respondents scrutinised the proposals and called for discussion with the selected number of persons including the petitioner. By letter dated 26.10.2007, the first respondent called upon the petitioner to attend a discussion to be held on 30.10.2007. Pursuant to the same, nothing could be seen and therefore, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.No.35536 of 2007 and this Court, by order dated 3.1.2008, disposed of the said Writ Petition by passing the following order: "This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to finalise the proposal as per the advertisement dated 11.09.2007. 2. While the petitioner is interested in promotion of international level of Tennis in Chennai with an aim of producing quality tennis players by offering excellent coaching, the respondent is an authority under the Government of Tamil Nadu having many stadia throughout the State. 2. While the petitioner is interested in promotion of international level of Tennis in Chennai with an aim of producing quality tennis players by offering excellent coaching, the respondent is an authority under the Government of Tamil Nadu having many stadia throughout the State. The respondent authority has developed a tennis stadium at Mogappair with two tennis courts and has also spent huge amount to lay synthetic tennis courts in order to provide facilities to the players. Offers had been called for by the respondent-authority for maintaining the synthetic tennis courts through private sports academies and vide its advertisement dated 11.09.2007, the respondent authority has called for "Expression of Interest" from various clubs, associations, sports bodies, entrepreneurs, corporate groups, trusts, etc. for augmentation of the facilities at the two synthetic tennis courts at Mogappair and has also invited suggestions for generation of income as well as to provide training to the players. In response, the petitioner has submitted its proposal on 28.09.2007 pursuant to which, it was called for a meeting on 30.10.2007. The petitioner also understands that subsequently, a meeting has been convened by the respondent and till date, it has not received any communication. Hence, the present writ petition for the relief as stated above. 3. Heard Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted its proposal on 28.09.2007 in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent on 11.09.2007; a meeting has been convened by the respondent in which the petitioner has participated subsequent to which, there has been no communication from the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that a meeting has been convened and a decision also taken and the petitioner has no legal right to question the decision taken in the meeting. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a consistent plea that the petitioner's proposal has been discussed in the meeting convened on 30.10.2007 and as such, he is entitled to know the result. In this circumstance, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of the case. Yet, the learned counsel for the petitioner has consistently pleaded that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to make a representation and the respondent may be directed to consider the same by passing appropriate orders. 6. In this circumstance, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of the case. Yet, the learned counsel for the petitioner has consistently pleaded that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to make a representation and the respondent may be directed to consider the same by passing appropriate orders. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to make an application to the respondent putting forth his case, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within a period of two weeks upon receipt of such application from the petitioner, the respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in respect of his grievance in accordance with law and on merits." 16. Pursuant to the above order of this Court, the petitioner submitted an application to the first respondent, to which, the first respondent has passed the impugned order, informing the petitioner that the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 13.11.2007, decided to extend the period of maintenance of the Tennis Courts to the second respondent. After the decision of the Executive Committee of the first respondent, the petitioner has made an application under the Right to Information Act, seeking for details of the decision taken by the Executive Committee. Accordingly, the first respondent furnished the details pertaining to grant of permission to maintain the Tennis Courts to the second respondent and the decision arrived at by the Executive Committee to extend the same to the second respondent. Aggrieved by the above order of the first respondent in permitting the second respondent to maintain the Tennis Court, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 17. Aggrieved by the above order of the first respondent in permitting the second respondent to maintain the Tennis Court, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 17. To examine the above impugned decision of the first respondent, in respect of Agenda No.23, dated 13.11.2007 of the meeting and the consequential order passed by the first respondent, dated 12.2.2008, it is seen that the first respondent, in the minutes of the meeting held on 13.11.2007, resolved in item No.23 to permit the second respondent-M/s.Prince Tennis Academy, to maintain the two synthetic Tennis Courts for the time being and complete their obligations as per the Memorandum of Understanding and however, in the event of non-compliance, action be taken to cancel the existing Memorandum of Understanding after following due procedure and appropriate agency be selected to run the SDAT synthetic Tennis Courts at Mogappair. Consequential order was passed by the first respondent on 12.2.2008, addressing to the petitioner, which reads as follows: "Sub: Maintenance of Tennis Court at Mogappair based on Expression of Interest-- Called for--Directions of Hon'ble High Court of Madras--Reply for grievance accordance with law--Reg. Ref: 1. Minutes of the Executive Committee, SDAT Meeting held on 13.11.2007. 2. Hon'ble High Court of Madras order in W.P.No.35536 of 2007,dt.03.1.2008. 3. Your letter no. nil, dt.04.02.2008. ---- In the Executive Committee Meeting held on 13.11.2007, it was decided to permit M/s.Prince Tennis Academy to maintain the two synthetic tennis courts for time being and complete their commitment. In the reference 2nd cited, the High Court has ordered that, "the Petitioner is permitted to make an application to the respondent putting forth his case, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within a period of two weeks upon receipt of such application from the petitioner, the respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in respect of his grievance in accordance with law and on merits." In your letter 3rd cited, you have requested to consider your application for the maintenance of the Tennis Courts at Mogappair in accordance with law and on merits. In view of the above, it is stated that, the Executive Committee of the SDAT have decided to permit the existing academy (i.e) M/s.Prince Tennis Academy to maintain the two Synthetic Tennis courts for the time being and complete their commitment. In view of the above, it is stated that, the Executive Committee of the SDAT have decided to permit the existing academy (i.e) M/s.Prince Tennis Academy to maintain the two Synthetic Tennis courts for the time being and complete their commitment. Therefore, as per the Executive Committee's decision, M/s.Prince Tennis Academy is permitted to continue the maintenance of the Tennis Courts at Mogappair. The above details are forwarded for your information." 18. At this juncture, the point that falls for consideration is, whether the above two decisions of the authority are in accordance with law or legally infirmed by arbitrary decision of the authority with total non-application of mind? 19. It is seen that there was an advertisement calling for Expression of Interest on 11.9.2007 and the petitioner applied on 28.9.2007 before the time prescribed by the authority at 4 p.m. After scrutinising the application, the first respondent called the petitioner for discussion and the communication was sent by the first respondent on 26.10.2007 calling upon the petitioner to attend the discussion to be held on 30.10.2007. But thereafter, the first respondent could not proceed with the Expression of Interest for the purpose of giving contract to a person. The Expression of Interest was called for inviting applications from various sport clubs, associations, sport bodies, entrepreneurs, corporate groups, trusts, etc. The first respondent also sought for suggestions for generation of income as well as to provide training to the players. Offers were furnished by the participants. However, the first respondent-SDAT, without any reason, have decided to go before the Executive Committee meeting to consider and approve the said Expression of Interest from private/corporate sectors. While deciding so, the first respondent decided to permit the second respondent to maintain the two synthetic Tennis Courts for the time being and complete their obligations as per the Memorandum of Understanding, making it clear that in an event of non-compliance, action will be taken to cancel the existing Memorandum of Understanding after following due procedure and appropriate agency be selected to run the SDAT synthetic Tennis Courts at Mogappair. 20. It is not placed on record that either in the year 2005 or thereafter, any Memorandum of Understanding has been entered into between the first and second respondents, till date. 20. It is not placed on record that either in the year 2005 or thereafter, any Memorandum of Understanding has been entered into between the first and second respondents, till date. However, the first respondent has taken a decision to go for Expression of Interest inviting the persons to give a suitable contract, and they have proceeded in the manner as provided, but suddenly, they have turned down and taken a decision to give extension of contract to the second respondent. 21. A perusal of the records as well as the entire proceedings makes it crystal clear that the authority has arbitrarily taken a decision contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act and the Rules contemplated therein. 22. Now, before this Court, the first respondent has taken a stand that the Expression of Interest was called only just to understand the mood of the public interested in the maintenance so as to plan for various sports activities in the city and the same is not binding on the first respondent and by doing so, no right will accrue in favour of the petitioner-Academy on their participation in such Expression of Interest. When the first respondent attempted to go for fresh tenders by inviting the Expression of Interest and issued advertisement, and thereafter, received the applications from the participants and scrutinised the papers and called for discussion, they have now arbitrarily turned down to give extension of contract to the second respondent for no reason. This kind of arbitrary decision taken by the authority is not supported by any document. As such, the impugned action taken by the first respondent is in no way supported by any logical reasoning or material document, and therefore, it is manifestly clear that the action of the first respondent in taking such a decision to give extension of contract to the second respondent, is unreasonable and an arbitrary exercise of power actuated with bias and ulterior motive. 23. Coming to the validity of the Resolution taken by the first respondent, it is to be examined that Bye-law 15, provides for powers and functions of the Executive Committee and Clause (3)(c) therein provides to establish, maintain, amalgamate and/or close institutions, units, centres, branches, stadia, offices, sports facilities, residential areas, buildings, etc. 23. Coming to the validity of the Resolution taken by the first respondent, it is to be examined that Bye-law 15, provides for powers and functions of the Executive Committee and Clause (3)(c) therein provides to establish, maintain, amalgamate and/or close institutions, units, centres, branches, stadia, offices, sports facilities, residential areas, buildings, etc. The authority of the Executive Committee and their decision are contemplated in Bye-laws 13 and 14 and as per Bye-law 13, the Executive Committee shall consist of the following members of the Authority, namely, the Minister for Education, and now, Minister for Sports, as Chairman, Vice-President (Executive) as Vice Chairman and Secretary to Government, Education Department, Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, the Vice Chancellor, who is the Member of the Authority and one representative from among the industrialists, philanthropists and bankers who is the member of the authority, are the members of the Executive Committee and the Member Secretary of the Authority is the Member Secretary and Chief Executive Officer. 24. The meeting of the Executive Committee shall be convened in the manner as provided under Bye-law 14, which inter-alia provided in clause (f) that the meeting of the Executive Committee shall be presided over by its Chairman and in his absence, the Vice Chairman shall preside over the meeting and in the absence of both, Member-Secretary shall preside over the meeting. Clause (g) therein provided that four members of the Executive Committee present in person shall constitute the quorum for the meeting of the Executive Committee. 25. The Resolution passed by the Executive Committee in Agenda No.23 constitutes a decision by the authority of the Executive Committee and that decision is binding on it. On verification of the entire records, it would reveal that Agenda No.23 to consider and approve to invite Expression of Interest from private/corporate sector to use synthetic Tennis Courts at Mogappair owned by SDAT, has been put for consideration. However, it was decided by them to permit the second respondent to maintain the two synthetic Tennis Courts for the time being and complete their obligations as per the Memorandum of Understanding, however, with condition. However, it was decided by them to permit the second respondent to maintain the two synthetic Tennis Courts for the time being and complete their obligations as per the Memorandum of Understanding, however, with condition. This Agenda has been approved only by the Minister for Sports, Secretary to Government and the Member Secretary of the SDAT and therefore, as per Clause (g) of Bye-law 14, there is no required quorum for the meeting of the Executive Committee in passing the Resolution and therefore, the decision taken by the Executive Committee cannot be construed as the authoritative decision of the Executive Committee, because, the said decision has been taken in violation of Clause (g) of Bye-law 14 without any quorum, and hence, the Agenda and the Resolution taken in the impugned proceedings dated 13.11.2007 and the subsequent communication of the first respondent, dated 12.2.2008, are ex-facie illegal and contrary to law provided under the Bye-laws of the first respondent. Therefore, for these reasons, the impugned proceedings are legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 26. In the above context, it is to be further seen that a public authority, while dealing with the contract, namely Expression of Interest in this case, and the first respondent being a body under the State of Tamil Nadu, has a binding obligation to follow the procedures contemplated under law. The case as projected by them is the Expression of Interest" inviting the proposals, which will certainly go only in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. 27. A perusal of the entire records and the relevant orders and the decision taken by the authorities, would give a clear impression to the Court that the first respondent has neither attempted nor followed the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder, for the purpose of the said Expression of Interest. The tender inviting authority under Section 10 of the said Act, has an obligation to cause an objective evaluation of the tenders taking into consideration the schedule of rates as mentioned in the tender document and also taking into consideration the Schedule of the Act. 28. The tender inviting authority under Section 10 of the said Act, has an obligation to cause an objective evaluation of the tenders taking into consideration the schedule of rates as mentioned in the tender document and also taking into consideration the Schedule of the Act. 28. From a perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee enclosed in page 69 of the typed set of papers filed along with the Writ Petition, it is clear that there is no objective evaluation by the first respondent. Even a perusal of the Resolution of the meeting and the decision taken and the verification of the records would give a clear impression that the first respondent-SDAT has not at all applied their mind to give application to the above provisions of law, which is contemplated for the process of any tenders by the State authorities. If the State largesse is to be taken for a public auction, it is incumbent upon the first respondent to follow the procedures contemplated under the said Act and the Rules, and then only, it could be done in the manner as contemplated under law. In the instant case, the manner of process of Expression of Interest, the decision taken thereafter and the extension granted to the second respondent, would clearly substantiate an act which is illegal and improper on the part of the first respondent and by no stretch of imagination, it could be construed that the said act is in accordance with law and in the manner as provided for. 29. The power of Judicial Review in a tender matter is rarely and hesitantly exercised by the Courts in India. Only in cases where there is arbitrary exercise of power and exercising such a power is discriminatory, mala-fide or actuated with bias, the Court can interfere. This principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India ( 1994 (6) SCC 651 ) and reiterated by this Court in the cases of Ion Exchange Waterleau Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Madurai Municipal Corporation (2008 (3) CTC 675) and P.Ramadas Vs. Materials Management Division, ONGC (2011 CIJ 93), holding that Judicial Review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for Judicial Review is made, but the decision making process itself. 30. The Commissioner, Madurai Municipal Corporation (2008 (3) CTC 675) and P.Ramadas Vs. Materials Management Division, ONGC (2011 CIJ 93), holding that Judicial Review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for Judicial Review is made, but the decision making process itself. 30. In the instant case, though a decision was taken by the first respondent to invite the Expression of Interest by giving an advertisement and pursuant to which applications were received before the cut-off date and the same were scrutinised and thereafter, the applicants were called for a discussion, all of a sudden, the authorities have not proceeded further, but instead, have taken a decision to extend the benefit to the second respondent. 31. An analysis of the entire materials and records produced before this Court, would give a clear indication that the manner in which the decision making process was stopped by the first respondent, after a particular stage, is ex-facie arbitrary, actuated with bias and shrouded with ulterior motive with the sole aim of extending the benefit to the second respondent. Therefore, this Court has no other option except to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with such a decision taken by the first respondent, contrary to the established law and procedure thereto. 32. For the foregoing reasonings and the conclusions arrived, the impugned orders suffer from legal infirmity and the same cannot be sustained, which are accordingly quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed, with a direction to the first respondent to process the tenders/Expression of Interest from the stage where it was scrutinised and called for discussion and to follow the procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Rules, 2000 and then to conclude the tenders/Expression of Interest process within a time frame. The entire exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.