Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 636 (MAD)

K. v. Srinivasan VS Chief General Manager

2012-02-07

R.SUDHAKAR

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents ending with the order of the 2nd respondent in No. MKTG/Genl/2002-2003 dated 5.9.2002 and quash the same and direct the respondents to award dealership post for Dindigul District. 2. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, Tamil Nadu Telecom Circle issued a tender notification dated 16.7.2002 widely published in the newspapers inviting tenders for appointment of dealers/distributors for its cellular services for a territory of every 50,000 lines capacity. The petitioner is one of the tenderers, who participated in the tender by submitting an application for the dealership of Namakkal District. The tenders were opened on 1.8.2002 and the rates quoted by the various tenderers were read out on that date after confirming the availability of E.M.D and that was also subject to scrutiny of documents for eligibility. The petitioner participated in the tender and his tender application was not considered as he did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for dealers and consequently by the impugned letter dated 5th September 2002, the authority informed the petitioner that the E.M.D will be refunded on proper application as per procedure. Challenging the same the present writ petition has been filed. 3. According to the petitioner, at the time of opening of the tenders, the petitioner was declared as L-1 and thereafter the impugned notification has been sent rejecting the petitioner's application. 4. The first ground raised in the writ petition is that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to law and the second ground stated is that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. These are the two grounds raised in the writ petition. Unfortunately in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, these two grounds have not been adverted to. 5. At the out set it has to be pointed out that the petitioner has not stated as to what is illegal in the impugned order and how it is contrary to law.The question of giving an opportunity to the petitioner should find place in the terms and conditions of the tender. A copy of the terms and conditions attached to the tender has not been enclosed in the typed set of papers filed in the writ petition. A copy of the terms and conditions attached to the tender has not been enclosed in the typed set of papers filed in the writ petition. The petitioner has not established that the terms and conditions of the tender requires the respondents to give an opportunity before rejection of the tender. 6. On the contrary a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent stating that the tender was opened on 1.8.2002 and after scrutiny of all the applications by the Officers nominated it was found by the Tender Evaluation Committee that the petitioner did not specify the eligibility criteria which is a pre-requisite condition for considering his application. Para 8 of the counter affidavit which is relevant for the present case reads as follows:- "8.) I further submit that the T.E.C had scrutinised the supporting documents submitted by the tenderer to find out his eligibility condition. The petitioner herein has not fulfilled the very first and prime condition of Turnover of Rs.25 lakhs. I further submit that the finance statement of the petitioner which has been duly certified by Chartered Accountant and as per his own statement submitted as enclosure which has revealed that the petitioner's turnover for the year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 were Rs.4.96 lakhs and Rs.5.06 lakhs respectively. I most respectfully state and submit that this itself disqualified the petitioner to take part in the tender. Further, the petitioner was neither a wholesaler nor a stockists for any FMCG having distribution net-work. It is further submitted that the certificate produced by the petitioner did not reveal any such information. Thereby he has failed to fulfill the eligiblity condition of 2 years experience in the distribution of FMCG. I further submit that since the non-fulfilling eligibility he was not considered for selection. In our letter No. MKTG/GENL/2002-03 dated 5.9.02 it was inadvertently mentioned that the petitioner has not fulfilled the selection criteria. In fact the petitioner has not fulfilled eligibility criteria...." 7. Since the claim of the petitioner was considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee and he was found to be ineligible the question of giving an opportunity to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, the writ petition filed without stating the provision of law that has been violated by the respondents or stating the terms and conditions which has been breached by the respondents has to fail. Therefore, the writ petition filed without stating the provision of law that has been violated by the respondents or stating the terms and conditions which has been breached by the respondents has to fail. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has also received the E.M.D amount long ago. For the reasons stated above, finding no merits the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.