Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2067 (MAD)

A. Liyakath Ali v. Secretary, Animal Husbandy

2014-07-10

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the issuance of a Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from procuring any work except by tender as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 by issuing requisite publication of notice inviting tenders by Tender Bulletin and in the newspapers and also in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules 2000. 2. The petitioner was earlier a successful bidder for procurement of milk and he has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in not following provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules 2000 made thereunder for Annual Maintenance Work of an Effluent Treatment Plant at Villupuram Diary and in Chinnasalem Milk Filling Centre. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of the Act read with Rules, no procurement shall be made by the procurement entity except by means of a tender. In this case, admittedly, tender has not been issued and the tender will have to be published in the newspapers, to enable everyone to participate. Since there is no transparency, the action of the respondents in giving the work under “Low Value Procurement” is illegal. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that as the value of “Low Value Procurement” is less than Rs.5 lakhs in terms of Section 16 of the Act, there is no need to issue tender. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the letter of the Villupuram-Cuddalore District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., Villupuram dated 24.1.2013, to the effect that the value is more than Rs.7 lakhs to show that six technically qualified persons are required for E.T. Plants at Villupuram and Chinnasalem and the amount would be approximately Rs.7.70 lakhs per annum. Even though the learned Government Advocate for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to the very same letter that it is suffice to have one I.T.I qualified and two non-technical qualified persons for cleaning purposes at Villupuram Dairy and similarly for Chinnasalem Chilling Centre for future periods and in order reduce the Annual Maintenance Contract amount at a cheaper rate, they have decided to engage 3 persons and the total amount of the contract for one year comes to Rs.4.96 lakhs, which is less than Rs.5 lakhs as contemplated under Rule 33 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules 2000. The respondents have called for Annual Maintenance Contract quotation from various centres nearly from 20 firms who have performed the supply of ETP equipments, the erection and commissioning of ETP in various Dairies and Chilling Centres in Tamil Nadu and other States and the addresses of those 20 firms were obtained from TCMPF Ltd., Chennai-51. In the addresses given, the name of the petitioner is not found and the petitioner name was not included. Since the petitioner was not allotted the contract in order to wreck vengeance, he has come up with the above writ petition, questioning the act of the respondents that they have called for tenders as per the aforesaid enactment. 5. I have heard Mr. N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Bala Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents. 6. From the records and the maintenance caused for the previous accounting year, it is clear that more than Rs.5 lakhs have been spent and that for maintenance of the Plants in question and the same requires six experts. The contention of the respondents that one technical person and two non-technical persons are sufficient, is a matter to be decided by the Federation and it is an administrative decision and the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. It is true that the Federation has given a reply to the lawyer's notice that the cost of maintenance would be more than Rs.7 lakhs and in order to reduce the maintenance cost by administrative decision, they have decided to have one technical person and two non-technical person. How an administrative authority should function is not a matter to be decided by this Court. If there are any illegalities only then the Court can come to the rescue of the aggrieved party. How an administrative authority should function is not a matter to be decided by this Court. If there are any illegalities only then the Court can come to the rescue of the aggrieved party. The amount involved is less than Rs.5 lakhs and the same is provided for under Rule 33 (substituted by Notification No.2 S.R.O. A-22(a)/2009) prescribes, low value of procurement, which is extracted as under for easy reference: “33. Low value procurement.--For the purposes of clause (d) of Section 16 of the Act, “low value procurement” means any procurement which is less than rupees twenty five lakhs in value for construction and which is less than rupees ten lakhs in value for all other categories of procurement inclusive of consultancies for construction.” Therefore, there is no need for calling tenders in terms of the Act and the Rules. The Courts cannot direct the respondents to adhere to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules 2000. Any administrative act taken on the ground that the amount to be spent on maintenance should be less than Rs.5 lakhs cannot be interfered with. Therefore, I find no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.