Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 227 (MAD)

B. Sekar v. Managing Director

2022-01-25

M.SUNDAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The captioned 41 main writ petitions pertain to tenders floated by Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited [TASMAC] pertaining to bars attached to various TASMAC retail outlets and more particularly for collection of empty bottles and for sale of eatables. 2. This Court is informed that the aforementioned tenders qua bars attached to TASMAC retail outlets have been published in all the 38 revenue districts in the State. 3. Inter alia the main issue in the captioned matters is No Objection Certificates from owners of the bar premises attached to TASMAC retail shops and award of contract / issue of license to persons who allegedly do not possess such No Objection Certificates. This Court refrains itself from expressing any opinion or view on this owing to the obtaining position which is set out infra. 4. This Court is informed that several writ petitions [atleast 22 writ petitions] have been moved by different individual bidders before the Principal Seat and the same is being heard out by a Hon'ble Single Judge in the Principal Seat. 5. Proceedings made by Hon'ble Single Judge in the Principal Seat in aforementioned 22 writ petitions in the listing on 22.12.2021 as placed before this Court is as follows: 'Mr.P.Arumugarajan, learned Standing Counsel and Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Standing Counsels for the respondents. 3. It is the complaint of the petitioners that they have been given license for a period of two years starting from 30.09.2019 to 30.09.2021 to collect the bottles and sell eatables in the TASMAC Shops/bars located in 38 districts. 4. The uniform case of the petitioners are that the petitioners have a private arrangement with the owners of the property where the TASMAC bars attached to the shop are being run and that the respondents have now floated a fresh tender on 14.12.2021 and on 15.12.2021 for out sourcing the activity of collecting bottles and vending food items in the bar premises by ousting the petitioner. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that almost fifteen months and fifteen days of the entire license period of the petitioners and members of the petitioners Association remained unutilized due to lock down and the restrictions imposed due to the outbreak Covid-19 pandemic. 6. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that almost fifteen months and fifteen days of the entire license period of the petitioners and members of the petitioners Association remained unutilized due to lock down and the restrictions imposed due to the outbreak Covid-19 pandemic. 6. It is submitted that though the petitioners were not required to pay the license fee during the lock down period when the TASMAC Shops/bars remained closed, nevertheless, the petitioners were paying the rents to the owners of the bar premises which were independently taken on lease by them from the respective owners of the properties. 7. It is further submitted that these petitioners had also maintained the staff even during the time when the TASMAC Shops/bars had to be closed due to lock down imposed during the first and second wave of Covid-19 pandemic. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the tender was advertised on 14.12.2021 and on 15.12.2021 for the proposed tender, the tender advertisement states that the forms can be downloaded from the website of the respondents TASMAC Limited. It is submitted that these forms are not available on the website of the respondents TASMAC Limited for being downloaded and that the petitioners were driven to approach the respective District Managers of the respondents TASMAC Limited, who are not giving Forms to the petitioners and the members of the petitioners Association and an attempt is being made to oust the petitioners and the members of the petitioners Association from participating in the tender process. 9. The challenge to the proposed tender is also for the alleged glaring violation of the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and their Rules made there under. 10. It is submitted that the minimum of fifteen days notice is required as per the Rules. It is further submitted that there is only a paper compliance of the Rules inasmuch as the Forms for participating in the tender are not being made available to the petitioners and the members of the petitioners Association. 11. It is submitted that the respondents are bound to follow the procedures prescribed under the aforesaid Rules for both outsourcing the purchase of goods or services. 11. It is submitted that the respondents are bound to follow the procedures prescribed under the aforesaid Rules for both outsourcing the purchase of goods or services. As the services of the petitioners are being ousted / proposed to be ousted in favour of the third parties who are close to the second respondent, the proposed auction should be stopped. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the members of the petitioners Association and the respective petitioners have heavily invested in developing the bar facility and therefore the petitioners should be given further opportunity to run/operate in the bar premises which are attached to the TASMAC Shops which are admittedly under their custody. 13. Opposing the prayer, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners are attempting to scuttle the tender process by making wrong statement. It is submitted that the Tender Forms are available in the website. In any event, these forms will be given to all the existing license holders whose licenses are currently valid as on date. 14. It is submitted that it is for the respective petitioners and the members of the petitioners Association to submit their offer and participate in the tender process on 30.12.2021 and the highest bidder will be awarded the tender to collect bottles and vend food items in the bars attached to the TASMAC Shops. 15. It is further submitted that the highest bidder will have to satisfy the requirements of the Government Order which contemplate “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) from the owners of the premises. 16. Recording the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, there shall be a direction to the respective District Manager of TASMAC in each of the District and Taluk to directly furnish physical copies of the application to each of the existing licensees like petitioners and the members of the petitioners Association to submit their proposal/bid in a sealed cover on or before 30.12.2021 before 2.00.p.m. 17. The petitioners and the members of the petitioners Association are at liberty to participate by offering their bids in the tender on or before 30.12.2021 before 2.00.p.m, by complying with the conditions stipulated in the Tender Advertisements dated 14.12.2021 and 15.12.2021. 18. The petitioners and the members of the petitioners Association are at liberty to participate by offering their bids in the tender on or before 30.12.2021 before 2.00.p.m, by complying with the conditions stipulated in the Tender Advertisements dated 14.12.2021 and 15.12.2021. 18. The respondents shall open tender and award the contract to the successful bidders and grant license to operate at the bar premises subject to the successful bidders also producing “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) from the owner of the property where such bars are located. 19. List these cases on 03.01.2022 for further orders.' [Underlining made by this Court for ease of reference] 6. This Court is informed that there were listings (in Principal Bench) thereafter on 03.01.2022, 07.01.2022 and 10.01.2022. From the official website it comes to light that further orders have not been made but the interim order granted by Hon'ble Single Judge captured in paragraph No.18 of the aforementioned 22.12.2021 is operating. To be noted there is no disputation or disagreement before this Court in this regard. This means that there is a clear overlap between the captioned main writ petitions and the aforementioned 22 writ petitions now pending in the Hon'ble Principal Seat. This is more so owing to paragraph No.18 of aforementioned order made by Hon'ble Single Judge in the Principal Seat (underlined for ease of reference). 7. Scanned reproduction of official website qua aforementioned 22 writ petitions in Principal Seat is as follows: “IMAGE” 8. Therefore to avoid possible anomalies or possible conflicting views which can lead to an ambiguous situation it would be desirable that the captioned writ petitions and the aforementioned writ petitions in the Principal Seat are tagged and heard out together by one Bench ie., one Hon'ble Judge. 9. Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan learned Counsel appearing on behalf of writ petitioners in the captioned matters and Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General instructed by Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC are before this Court. 10. Learned Counsel for writ petitioners submits that some emergent interim orders are required. Therefore, Registry is directed to place forthwith captioned case files along with these proceedings of mine before Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice and seek suitable orders.