ORDER 1. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 24.07.2015 in and by which the representation given by the petitioner to initiate action against the third respondent was rejected and consequential direction to the first respondent to conduct an enquiry as to the fraudulent conduct of the third respondent in respect of production of forged documents and to pass appropriate orders on the qualification of the third respondent before finalizing the tender for the appointment of transport contractor for transportation of essential commodities from FCI depots to the storage points of TNCSC in Tirunelveli Region. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the contractor and she has already executed several contracts for the first respondent for the past several years. One of the qualifications for being appointed as a contractor for the first respondent for FCI and non-FCI movements is that the contractor should possess and own minimum number of lorries which are roadworthy. The third respondent herein is in the habit of manipulating records for the purpose of participating in the tenders floated by the first respondent. The third respondent, in order to secure the contract for the period 2009-2010 for Tirunelveli Region, had manipulated the records and produced R.C. Book of a condemned lorry for which the fitness certificate was not given from September, 2006. As per the terms and conditions, this is a serious irregularity and the third respondent is liable to be blacklisted and even as per the guidelines of TNCSC, severe action has to be taken against the tenderers if their conduct is fraudulent. Since the contract is regarding transportation of essential commodities, the conduct of the contractors right from the process of tender is being considered as an important aspect for awarding contract. Even though the petitioner has brought the above irregularity of the third respondent to the notice of the respondents 1 and 2, no action was taken against the third respondent. Further, on the baseless and false complaint given by the third respondent against the petitioner to disqualify her, an enquiry was conducted and in fact, the enquiry was concluded in favour of the petitioner. Further, on the baseless and false complaint given by the third respondent against the petitioner to disqualify her, an enquiry was conducted and in fact, the enquiry was concluded in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, since the conduct of the third respondent in manipulating the records is fraudulent and against the interest of the statutory corporation, the petitioner gave a representation on 23.04.2014 to the first respondent to take action against the third respondent. But the first respondent had not conducted any enquiry on the complaint given by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act to know the fate of her representation and she was informed by the Public Information Officer by communication dated 22.09.2015 stating that her representation has been forwarded to the first respondent for taking appropriate action. 3. While the situation stood thus, the respondents 1 and 2 have recently floated tenders for appointment of transport contractors throughout the State and the petitioner and the third respondent have submitted their tenders for Tirunelveli Region. Even at this point of time, it is expected from the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner before finalising the tenders. Since the respondents 1 and 2 have not taken care to consider the petitioner's representation before opening of bid, the petitioner was constrained to file a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 11354 of 2014 seeking issuance of a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider her representation dated 23.04.2014 and to take necessary action as per law. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2015 directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 23.04.2014, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the third respondent as well as any of the interested parties, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner gave another representation on 08.07.2015 requesting the first respondent to defer the consideration of the tender submitted by the third respondent till a final decision is taken on the complaints received against the third respondent. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner gave another representation on 08.07.2015 requesting the first respondent to defer the consideration of the tender submitted by the third respondent till a final decision is taken on the complaints received against the third respondent. After receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, the first respondent postponed the opening of tender covers in respect of Tirunelveli Region. In fact, the third respondent, who had participated in the tender for Tirunelveli Region, also submitted the tender for Kancheepuram Region. Hence, another contractor who is also the participant in the tender process in respect of Kancheepuram Region approached the Principal Bench of this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P. No. 20833 of 2015 for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent not to award the contract for transportation of food grains to the third respondent in respect of Kancheepuram Region for the period from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 13.07.2015 with a direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 07.07.2015. In these situation, the first respondent knew very well that the transport contract cannot be awarded in favour of the third respondent, if the allegation against him is proved. The very postponement of opening of the price bid would show that the first respondent has decided to finalise the tender after completion of the enquiry as against the third respondent. In these background, suddenly on 24.07.2015 the first respondent has passed an order rejecting the representation given by the petitioner. In the impugned order, it is stated that no action can be taken as against the third respondent as he is not an existing contractor of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. While admitting the main Writ Petition, this Court has granted interim injunction by order dated 27.07.2015. 5. In the impugned order, it is stated that no action can be taken as against the third respondent as he is not an existing contractor of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. While admitting the main Writ Petition, this Court has granted interim injunction by order dated 27.07.2015. 5. On appearance, the third respondent has filed a counter in the form of vacate stay petition in M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2015 stating that the illegal act of forgery alleged by the petitioner as against the third respondent is said to have been committed in the year 2009 and thereafter, the petitioner and the third respondent have jointly submitted a tender proposal dated 24.06.2013 for movement stocks for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 to the first respondent. The first respondent also vide his proceedings dated 08.07.2013 has accepted the tender jointly submitted by the petitioner and the third respondent and accordingly, they have acted as transport contractors and executed the works. But, thereafter, on 23.04.2014, with a vindictive attitude, the petitioner had given a false representation to block the third respondent from participating in the ensuing tender for the period from 2015 to 2017. It is utterly false to allege that in order to secure the contract, the third respondent has manipulated the original records and mala fidely produced R.C. Book of a condemned lorry. Even the allegation that the third respondent has submitted the fabricated records to secure the contract for the period 2009-2010 for Tirunelveli Region is false since no such event had ever taken place. Further, it is stated that the third respondent has not committed any serious irregularities as alleged by the petitioner and hence, he is not liable to be blacklisted. The petitioner has obtained information under the Right to Information Act from the second respondent which did not reveal any forgery or any manipulation of records that had been committed by the third respondent but it reveals that the fitness certificate of one of the vehicles owned by the third respondent is not in force. In these situation, the respondents 1 and 2 have called for tender on 20.06.2015 from qualified transport contractors for the period from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017 for various areas in Tamil Nadu. In these situation, the respondents 1 and 2 have called for tender on 20.06.2015 from qualified transport contractors for the period from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017 for various areas in Tamil Nadu. The third respondent has applied for Tirunelveli and Kancheepuram Region and the petitioner has applied for Tirunelveli Region. As per the tender announcements, the tender forms will be sold from 20.06.2015 to 06.07.2015 at 04.00 p.m. and the filled in and fully completed tender forms should be submitted in the first respondent office before 11.00 a.m. on 07.07.2015 and on the same day at 11.30 a.m. the technical bidding part 1 cover will be opened. Wherein it is also mentioned that the tenders will be opened in the first respondent office on the same day or the subsequent day and the qualified and successful bidder's name will be announced on the same day evening. Subsequent to the opening of the part 1 cover, on 08.07.2015, the petitioner has produced the copy of the order dated 06.07.2015 passed in W.P. (MD) No. 11354 of 2015 which does not bar the third respondent either from placing the tender or accepting the same by the respondents 1 and 2 if the third respondent is qualified in all aspects. However, the respondents 1 and 2 in all fair manner have not proceeded further. In compliance with the order of this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 11354 of 2014 dated 06.07.2015, after considering the allegations and averments made in the petitioner's representation dated 23.04.2014 and after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and the third respondent, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 24.07.2015. Thereafter, at 11.00 a.m. on 27.07.2015, the part 2 cover was opened and the third respondent was declared as the successful bidder. Knowing fully well that the third respondent was declared as successful bidder, suppressing the said fact, the petitioner has moved this Court and obtained interim injunction i.e. after the bid was opened, which according to the third respondent has become infructuous. Thus, he sought dismissal of this Writ Petition. 6. The second respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the respondent corporation is entrusted with procurement, storage and distribution of essential commodities to 32,000 ration outlets. Thus, he sought dismissal of this Writ Petition. 6. The second respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the respondent corporation is entrusted with procurement, storage and distribution of essential commodities to 32,000 ration outlets. For which, every year transport contractors are appointed to move the stocks under two categories called Food Corporation of India and Non Food Corporation of India movement i.e., movement of food grains from Food Corporation of India Depot to TNCSC Godown and movement with godowns, retail outlets, mills etc. within TNCSC Storage point. Due to business rivalry, it has become the practice among the transport contractors to make allegations against each other. Thus, the petitioner has made allegation against the third respondent stating that he had earlier submitted fabricated records and produced R.C. Book of the condemned lorry for securing transport contract during the year 2009-2010. If the third respondent had fabricated any document, the petitioner ought to have complained before the concerned transport authority. But, without doing the same, after a lapse of five years period, knowing fully well that the tender of the third respondent was rejected earlier as he was not technically qualified and had not fulfilled the tender conditions, now the petitioner has given complaint against the third respondent which clearly shows that the same is due to business rivalry. Thus, they sought dismissal of this Writ Petition. 7. Pending Writ Petition, the petitioner has filed contempt petition in Cont. Pet. (MD) No. 1070 of 2015 as against the respondents 1 and 2 namely the Managing Director and the Regional Manager of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation stating that this Court has passed interim order in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2015 on 27.07.2015 restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from opening the price bid of the third respondent and finalise the contract. When the price bid was about to be opened on 27.07.2015 around 11.00 a.m. the petitioner's son gave a letter to the second respondent objecting the opening of the tender submitted by N. Kumaresan, the third respondent in this Writ Petition. Surprisingly, the second respondent refused to receive the letter purposely. Hence, to show protest, the petitioner's son did not participate in the process of opening the price bid. Surprisingly, the second respondent refused to receive the letter purposely. Hence, to show protest, the petitioner's son did not participate in the process of opening the price bid. But on the next day i.e. on 28.07.2015, the petitioner has sent one of her sons and few representatives to the second respondent's office to inform about the interim order. Expecting the petitioner's representative to serve the copy of the order, the second respondent abstained himself from coming to office and the Deputy Regional Manager, who was present in the office of the second respondent refused to receive the letter. Therefore, the said letter was sent to the second respondent through Speed Post and Courier on the same day. Further, the second respondent has not come to the office on 28.07.2015 and 29.07.2015 with a clear determination not to meet any one from the third respondent side. Further, it is very strange that the second respondent has passed an order appointing the third respondent as contractor. Though the order awarding contact to the third respondent was typed on 29.07.2015 the same was antedated by putting the date as 28.07.2015 and it was served on the third respondent on 29.07.2015. It is pertinent to point out that the second respondent after negotiation is expected to inspect all the vehicles and its original R.C. Books and Fitness Certificates and then, give written intimation about the award of contract. Thereafter, the successful tenderer will be asked to give a demand draft towards performance guarantee and to execute the agreement in the prescribed format. In this case, the second respondent has not followed the procedure with utter disregard to the order of this Court and in order to deny the petitioner the benefit of interim order, he has awarded the contract to the third respondent by putting ante-date and thereby committed contempt of Court. 8. When the matter was taken into consideration, the learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner as a business rivalry. In fact, the allegations made by the petitioner that in order to secure the contract for the year 2009-2010, the third respondent has produced a forged document in respect of a condemned lorry, is utterly falsehood. In fact, the allegations made by the petitioner that in order to secure the contract for the year 2009-2010, the third respondent has produced a forged document in respect of a condemned lorry, is utterly falsehood. The learned counsel for the third respondent also invited the attention of this Court to the Performance Certificate issued by the Regional Manager, TNCSC, to the effect that the third respondent was awarded the contract for the years 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and submitted that had the third respondent produced forged document in the year 2009-2010, he would not have awarded with the contract by the respondent corporation for the subsequent years viz., 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. In fact, at the instigation of the petitioner, another contractor viz., Vinayagam who had participated in the tender process had lodged a complaint and an enquiry was conducted on the same and a detailed order was passed by the first respondent on 13.08.2015 stating that the allegation made against the third respondent is only due to business rivalry and absolutely there is no evidence to show that the third respondent had produced a forged document for the contract period 2009-2010. Under such circumstances, there is no merits in this Writ Petition. 9. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that time and again, the Supreme Court has reiterated the fact that in the matter of tenders, the scope of interference of the Court is limited in nature. Similarly, the judicial review in the administrative action in awarding the tender is also limited in nature. In support of his contention, he has also relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Gammon India Limited vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Others. 2. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others vs. Om Prakash Sharma. 3. Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 . 10. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that after receiving the interim order, now the respondents are maintaining the status-quo as on date and therefore, there is no contempt. 11. Heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 12. 10. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that after receiving the interim order, now the respondents are maintaining the status-quo as on date and therefore, there is no contempt. 11. Heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 12. Keeping in mind the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perusal of materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner and the third respondent are the transport contractors and both of them have participated in the tender process for the period 2015-2017. But according to the petitioner, the third respondent had produced a forged document of a condemned lorry in order to secure tender for the year 2009-2010 and when this fact was brought to the notice of the first respondent by the petitioner vide his representation dated 23.04.2014, without properly considering the same, the first respondent has awarded the tender in favour of the third respondent by order dated 24.07.2015 when the interim order was in force. Whereas, according to the third respondent, the allegation made by the petitioner is false and in fact, the third respondent was awarded the contract for the subsequent years viz., 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Hence, according to the third respondent, if the allegations of the petitioner is true, he would have not been awarded with the contract subsequent to 2009-2010 and the performance certificate for the relevant period would not have been issued. Hence, in my considered opinion, if the third respondent had produced the forged document in order to secure contract for the year 2009-2010, he would not have been awarded the contract for the subsequent years and the petitioner has all along kept quiet and has now made allegations against the third respondent alleging the forgery stated to have been committed by the third respondent in the year 2009-2010, is due to business rivalry. Further, on the same set of allegations, at the instigation of this petitioner one Vinayagam also lodged a complaint against the third respondent which was enquired into and a detailed order has been passed by the first respondent vide his proceedings dated 13.08.2015 holding that absolutely no documents were produced to prove the allegations and it is due to business rivalry. Therefore, for the allegations made by the petitioner, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the first respondent and appropriate orders have been passed. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent awarding the contract in favour of the third respondent. That apart, the judicial review in the administrative action in awarding the tender is also limited in nature and this Court is not conducting any roving enquiry or a trial in this writ petition. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the case of the petitioner and hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 13. So far as contempt petition filed against the respondents 1 and 2 is concerned, considering the fact that the petitioner has received the interim order passed by this Court only after the impugned order was passed by the first respondent in favour of the third respondent, this Court is of the opinion that there is no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. Hence, I do not find any act of contempt on the part of the respondents 1 and 2. Moreover, after receiving the order copy, the respondents 1 and 2 have not proceeded further in the matter. Hence, the Contempt Petition is closed.