JUDGMENT B. RAJENDRAN, J. 1. The Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Mandamus to issue a fresh auction notification in the manner known to law to install shops and variety of entertainment galleries in the ground situated behind the Kottaimariyamman temple, Dindigul during the Masi festival of the temple scheduled to be held from 12.02.2015 to 03.03.2015 taking into representation dated 29.12.2014. 2. According to the petitioner, the festival is being conducted for more than 20 years at Kottaimariyamman temple, Dindigul. During the festival, the ground belonging to the Sport Development Authority is being used to install various shops and giant wheel and so on, for which the tender should be called for as per the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act 1998 (for short the Act). Since it was not done as per the Act, the petitioner constrained to file a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 1621 of 2014, in which a direction was issued to the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.01.2014. Inspite of that, the respondent did not issue any tender publication and awarded the last year tender to one Mr. Ramesh Murali vide the proceedings of the respondents dated 03.01.2014. Even then, the respondents did not rectify the mistake, which resulted filing an another Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 3716 of 2014 by the petitioner seeking a fresh tender. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, by this Court on 06.03.2014, in which a direction was issued to the respondents therein to receive the demand draft offered by this petitioner for a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs for awarding the contract and transfer the licence granted in favour of the said Ramesh Mruali to this petitioner. In fact, the petitioner was forced to file another Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 4400 of 2014 seeking to grant the licence to him. 3. Against the order of the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 4400 of 2014, the said Ramesh Murali, the highest bidder filed a Writ Appeal in W.A. (MD) No. 449 of 2014. It was disposed of by this Court on 13.06.2014. 3. Against the order of the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 4400 of 2014, the said Ramesh Murali, the highest bidder filed a Writ Appeal in W.A. (MD) No. 449 of 2014. It was disposed of by this Court on 13.06.2014. In the said Writ Appeal, this Court had condemned the activities of the respondents therein and clearly stated that as the successful bidder had by the time enjoyed the fruits of the tender in question, setting aside of the tender awarded to the said Ramesh Murali would cause numerous anomalies and therefore, the said Ramesh Mruali was directed to pay the difference amount, namely, the amount offered by this petitioner, Rs. 20 Lakhs and the amount offered by the said Ramesh Mruali for awarding such contract. It is also represented by this petitioner that the difference amount as directed by the Division Bench of this Court has not been collected by the respondents, as on date. Noting of the irregularities that had taken placed in the tender, the Division Bench of this Court has posed a serious question to the authorities concerned, which are as follows:- "The second respondent/District Collector is directed to immediately stop the conduct of the exhibition. The learned Special Government Pleader shall inform the District Collector. 2. The District Collector is directed to file a report explaining:- (i) as to how without any tender, the appellant was granted licence; (ii) as to why the district administration should not be directed to compensate the State for having caused loss to the State by granting the larges-see by way of private negotiations to the appellant; (iii) as to why the District Administration did not stop the appellant from conducting the exhibition atleast immediately after the receipt of the order dated 06.03.2014 and 13.03.2014 passed by this Court. 3. A copy of this order shall be issued to the Special Government Pleader and shall also be communicated to the District Collector? 4. When all these things had happened last year, the respondents did not change their attitude this year too. According to the petitioner, though the upset price was fixed as Rs. 20 Lakhs as offered by him in the last year, he was not allowed to participate in the tender. This year too, though he obtained tender form, according to the petitioner, he was not allowed to do so. According to the petitioner, though the upset price was fixed as Rs. 20 Lakhs as offered by him in the last year, he was not allowed to participate in the tender. This year too, though he obtained tender form, according to the petitioner, he was not allowed to do so. More over, the main allegation of the petitioner is that there was no publication in the news paper regarding the tender in question. According to him, the authorities are trying to award the tender at their disposal flouting the Tender Transparency Act. 5. The respondent, namely, the District Collector, Dindigul District has filed a counter affidavit stating among other things that there was a publication in Daily Thanti? On 20.12.2014 granting time for the tenderers to submit their tender forms between 22.12.2014 and 31.12.2014 at 4.00 p.m. on payment of Rs. 500/- with a caution deposit of Rs. 5 Lakhs. Therefore, the averment of the petitioner that publication was not made is not correct. In response to the paper publication, three participants had participated in the tender. Among them one A. Ganesh Kumar was declared as the successful bidder who offered Rs. 20,05,000/- as highest bid amount. Further, the Writ Petitioner in his representation dated 29.12.2014 has requested time of ten days to remit the bid amount and also to reduce the amount of Rs. 25,000/- per day for extension of the period which are contrary to the tender conditions. The petitioner with an ulterior motive has raised this impracticable requests in order to thwart the auction process. The respondent would further contend that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 6. As per the order of this Court dated 21.01.2015, one of the participants also appeared though his Advocate Mr. Pariah Kumar, though he is not impleaded in this Writ Petition. He submitted that he has already remitted a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs before the respondents and waiting for the order from the respondents. He further submitted that though the petitioner submitted that he would remit Rs. 25 Lakhs towards the tender in question, he could bring only Rs. 5 Lakhs before this Court. Therefore, the contact of the petitioner is to be taken note of in this case. 20 Lakhs before the respondents and waiting for the order from the respondents. He further submitted that though the petitioner submitted that he would remit Rs. 25 Lakhs towards the tender in question, he could bring only Rs. 5 Lakhs before this Court. Therefore, the contact of the petitioner is to be taken note of in this case. Eventually, he submitted that if the tender is cancelled, great prejudice would happen to his party and prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 7. Heard Mr. V. Vinayaga Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pariah Kumar, learned counsel for one of the participants and Mr. N. Manoharan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. 8. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up in view of the emergent circumstances that arises that the function is scheduled on 12.02.2015. 9. At the outset, the petitioner herein has brought to the notice of this Court that the tender in question has not been called for, as per the Act. Though the petitioner contended that there was no publication, today, the respondent produced the original news clippings to show that there was a proper tender notification in daily thanti. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is to be rejected. Even then, according to the petitioner, the Act has been violated in calling for the tender. In the last year, this petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court about the irregularities committed by the respondent. Though the amount quoted by him was the highest in the last year and a specific direction was issued to the respondents therein to transfer the licence in favour of this petitioner, the respondent did not do so for the best reasons known to them. Therefore, he was constrained to file a Writ Petition after Writ Petition to get the things done. Eventually, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court through its order dated has passed the following order, in which, paragraphs 10 & 11 and 17 and 18 are usefully extracted below:- "10. As we pointed out earlier, the right to put up stalls and run a Theme Park was itself only for a period of three weeks. A major portion of the period expired by the time, the Appellant came up with the above Appeal on 17.03.2014. As we pointed out earlier, the right to put up stalls and run a Theme Park was itself only for a period of three weeks. A major portion of the period expired by the time, the Appellant came up with the above Appeal on 17.03.2014. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge stands effectively frustrated by the Appellant possibly with the connivance of the officials respondents, who are the respondents 2 & 3. Today irrespective of what happens to the Writ Appeal, the Appellant virtually has succeeded. 11. But the fact remains that a huge revenue is lost to the Government. The amount for which the Appellant knocked the tender was Rs. 13,96,500/-. By bringing a Demand Draft for Rs. 20 Lakhs before the learned Judge, the first respondent has demonstrated that the respondents 2 & 3 could have atleast got a revenue of Rs. 20 Lakhs. 17. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the appellant is a beneficiary of an arbitrary grant which resulted in the Government suffering a short fall in income atleast to the tune of Rs. 6 Lakhs as demonstrated before the learned Judge. Therefore, the only way in which the worn committed by the District Collector as well as the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge could be set right is to modify the order of the learned Judge and putting the appellant on terms. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed, the Order of the learned Judge is modified directing the appellant to pay to the District Collector, a sum of Rs. 6,03,500/- (being the deficit between Rs. 20 Lakhs offered by the first respondent and the amount of Rs. 13,96,500/- quoted by the appellant) within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the amount is not paid by the appellant, the District Collector shall recover the same as if it is arrears of land revenue. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed? 10. A perusal of the Division Bench would amply clear that due to the intervention of the petitioner, the facts were unearthed by the Division Bench of this Court meticulously. But, the tenor of the order has not been taken into account once again by the careless attitude of the officials. This time too, the respondents appears to have acted only to help a particular people. But, the tenor of the order has not been taken into account once again by the careless attitude of the officials. This time too, the respondents appears to have acted only to help a particular people. Till date, the amount pointed by the Division Bench of this Court has not been recovered by the respondents. Of course, the learned Special Government Pleader would only contend that they are taking necessary steps to recover the amount. Prima facie, this Court visualises that there is irregularity in floating the tender and also in view of the fact that the tender is not as per the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, as per Rules 20(1), especially, this Court time and again emphaised the fact that the time is essence of the contract and even if there is a lapse of even one day in calling for the tender, it vitiates the entire tender process, I have no hesitation in quashing the very tender itself, dated 31.12.2014, for more than one reason. (1) As already pointed out earlier, first of all, there is total violation and irregularities in the tender process. (2) Secondly, the publication was made on 20.12.2014 and according to the respondent, the last date for submission of the tender is 31.12.2014. The time gap for submission of the tender form is only 11 days and not 15 days, as per the Rules. Whereas as per the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, the minimum time is 15 days. For better conclusion, the said Rules are usefully extracted below:- "20. Minimum time for submission of tenders:- (1) The tender inviting authority shall ensure that adequate time is provided for the submission of tenders and a minimum time is allowed between date of publication of the Notice Inviting Tenders in the relevant Tender Bulletin or in the newspapers whichever is later and the last date for submission of tenders. This minimum period shall be as follows:- (a) for tenders upto rupees two crores in value, fifteen days. (b) for tenders in excess of rupees two crores in value, thirty days. (2) Any reduction in the time stipulated as per sub-rule (1) has to be specifically authorized by an authority superior to the Tender Inviting Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing. Therefore, it is not in tune with Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. (2) Any reduction in the time stipulated as per sub-rule (1) has to be specifically authorized by an authority superior to the Tender Inviting Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing. Therefore, it is not in tune with Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. (3) Neither the time required for the tender is followed nor reasons are given in writing for shortening the number of days for the tender. In fact, the original file itself has been produced and there is no order by any superior authority for reducing the time. (4) It is pertinent to point out that inspite of so many things that had happened last year, still the authorities have not learnt their lesson so far. Atleast, this year the respondent should have been doubly cautious in awarding the tender for the simple reason that the festival in question is celebrated for more than two decades. Why the respondent should process the tender at the eleventh hour has to be pondered over? (5) The manner in which the amount quoted in this tender is also to be noted. For such a huge tender, only three participants had participated and each of the participants had quoted gradually by increasing an amount of Rs. 500/- and the highest bidder in this tender is Rs. 20,05,000/- This Court can visualize what could have happened considering the earlier order passed by this Court. When last year itself, this petitioner had quoted a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- this year it fetched only on an increase of Rs. 5000/-. Therefore, the tender process is nothing but fishy in all respects. The submission of the respondents that though many participants have received the tender forms but not submitted is nothing but a cock and bull story. 11. Apart from the above, in order to show the bona fide of the petitioner, in an earlier hearing, this Court directed the petitioner to bring the Demand Draft drawn in favour of respondent to the tune of Rs. 15 Lakhs as he had offered to pay Rs. 25 Lakhs for this year. Though he could bring a photo copy of the demand draft for Rs. 15 Lakhs, in the next hearing date, he was able to produce Rs. 15 Lakhs as he had offered to pay Rs. 25 Lakhs for this year. Though he could bring a photo copy of the demand draft for Rs. 15 Lakhs, in the next hearing date, he was able to produce Rs. 5 Lakhs demand draft in original stating that he was harassed by the officials and unknowns persons, who asked him to get out of the tender. Therefore, he was unable to bring the demand draft as directed by this Court. Noting the importance of this case, the learned Special Government Pleader was directed to file the original file in this regard. The original files were also perused by me. I could see that there are number of loose sheets in the said file. 12. At this juncture, the learned Special Government Pleader would plead before this Court that since the function is scheduled on 12.02.2015 and the time is insufficient, the respondent may be given at liberty to conduct the festival by invoking Section 20(2) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. 13. In view of the foregoing reasons, the tender dated 31.12.2014 is quashed and the following directions are issued to the respondents:- (i) The District Collector is at liberty to call for the tender after getting necessary approval from his higher authority setting out the reasons for invoking Section 20(2) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. (ii) It is made clear that the advertisement calling for the tender in question shall be done in one morning newspaper as well as in one evening newspaper having wide circulation all over the Tamil Nadu in order to fetch the maximum revenue to the Government. (iii) It is made clear that the petitioner will be permitted to participate in the tender if he complies with the norms, as he has now offered Rs. 25 Lakhs for this year. (iv) The respondent should follow the rules meticulously as laid down in the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. 14. Before parting with this order, as a word of caution, the respondent shall atleast keep in mind this time and in future that every penny collected by way of contract is a revenue for the Government and the said amount is spent for the welfare of the people at large and prosperity of this Country. 14. Before parting with this order, as a word of caution, the respondent shall atleast keep in mind this time and in future that every penny collected by way of contract is a revenue for the Government and the said amount is spent for the welfare of the people at large and prosperity of this Country. Therefore, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the action of awarding tenders in a casual manner, like the case on hand, when the irregularities are brought to the notice of this Court, it has to necessarily struck down the tender. 15. In fine, this Writ Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.