JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Tender Notification of the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/1382/ 2022 dated 02.08.2022 and quash the same insofar as Clause 8 of the Tender Co ndition which provides for grant of license to the highest bidder without insistin g for NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE/CONSENT from the owner of the Prem ises and forbear the Respondents form conducting the tender without issuing ten der forms to all the intending bidders in physical forms with the entry pass and t he tender submission envelope.) Common Order 1. Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents and is armed with instructions to proceed with the matter finally even at this juncture. Hence, by consent of both learned counsel, these Writ Petitions are disposed finally even at the stage of admission. 2. There are six writ petitioners before me who propose to submit their bids pursuant to a tender notification dated 02.08.2022 for collection of empty bottles and selling of snacks in the bars attached to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) outlets. 3. Their grievances are common. Firstly, they would challenge the impugned tender on the ground that while the application form contains a stipulation that the bidder must either establish the factum of ownership of the premises proposed to be deployed by him for the tender activity or produce a No Objection Certificate (in short 'NOC' ) from the owner of the property from whom he has leased the property for the stated activity, there is no such stipulation in the tender condition itself. This, they say, leads to an anamolous situation, one that creates a monopoly in the grant of tenders. 4. It is only at the time of the opening of bids that such NOC is sought, and, according to the petitioner, it would be appropriate that such condition was incorporated as part and parcel of the tender conditions, requiring satisfaction at the inception. Thus, and to clarify. what the petitioners' seek, is that the procedure for submission of bids be itself modified, such that the tenderer is required to produce proof of ownership or NOC along with the submission of tender. 5. Thus, and to clarify. what the petitioners' seek, is that the procedure for submission of bids be itself modified, such that the tenderer is required to produce proof of ownership or NOC along with the submission of tender. 5. Per contra, Mr.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for TASMAC would submit that the process being currently followed is that the bids are opened in the presence of all tenderers and the list of bidders, in order of highest to lowest bid, is thereafter ascertained. Compliance is then verified, commencing from H1, as to whether the bidders have produced proof of ownership/NOC. Assuming that H1 does not have the required NOC, he is granted a period of one (1) week for the production of NOC. 6. The above procedure is provided for in Circlular dated 22.07.2014 issued by TASMAC and appears to be the result of a concicous decision of the State to ensure wider participation by bidders and prevent monopoly by those bidders who are in a position to produce NOC even at the inception. A copy of Circular dated 22.07.2014 is produced before me and relevant clauses are as under:- 1. The tender applicants need to enclose the No Objection Certificate, obtained from the bar premises owner, along with the bar tender documents. 2. The Tender Inviting Authority should evaluate the tenders only based on the price bids received from the bidders subject to compliance of other terms and conditions of the tender. 3. After evaluation of the price bids and selection of the highest bidder (H1), the Tender Inviting Authority should intimate, within 24 hours, the successful bidder (H1) about the selection subject to submission of the following within seven days by the successful bidder- a). the rental agreement between the bar premises owner and the successful bidder, b). Single demand draft for the security deposits; and c). Single demand draft for the current month bar amount. 4. The rental agreement between the bar premises owner and the successful bidder must contain, inter-alia, the following clause- "The Lesser unconditionally permits the lessee to undertake the business of running the bar including collecting emply bottles and selling of eatables during the period of lease agreement” 5. Single demand draft for the current month bar amount. 4. The rental agreement between the bar premises owner and the successful bidder must contain, inter-alia, the following clause- "The Lesser unconditionally permits the lessee to undertake the business of running the bar including collecting emply bottles and selling of eatables during the period of lease agreement” 5. If the successful bidder (H1) fails to furnish the rental agreement entered into with the bar premises owner within seven days, the Tender inviting Authority may request the next highest bidder (H2) to match the offered/bid price of the highest bidder (H1) and only upon acceptance of the same award the contract to H2 bidder provided that H2 bidder furnish the rental agreement that he has entered into with the bar premises owner. 7. The above Circular has also merited reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing W.P.No.19073 of 2014 and other matters vide order dated 28.10.2014, in paragraphs 8 & 9, extracted below:- '...... 8. However, during the pendency of the writ petitions, a circular has been issued on 22.07.2014 which contemplates that the successful bidder/ highest bidder is required to produce the rental agreement with the owner of the premises in which there should be a condition stating that the owner of the premises unconditionally permits the licensee/ successful bidder to undertake business for running bar including collection of empty bottles and sell eatables in the bar attached to the TASMAC shop, during the lease period. Therefore, such condition mandates production of no-objection certificate. The circular dated 22.07.2014 also states that failure to produce such a rental agreement within 7 days, the Tender Inviting Authority may request the next highest bidder to match the offer/ bid price of the highest bidder. Further, the circular states that if the bidder fails to furnish the rental agreement to the Tender Inviting Authority, then the bidders will perpetually be banned/ blacklisted to participate in the subsequent tenders. In the light of the subsequent Circular dated 22.07.2014, the relief sought for by the petitioners has been considered and granted. 9. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to insist upon no-objection certificate/ lease agreement from the owner/ landlord of the premises with all the relevant clauses from the highest/ successful bidder, as confirmed by the Tender Inviting Authority and as stipulated in the Circular dated 22.07.2014. 9. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to insist upon no-objection certificate/ lease agreement from the owner/ landlord of the premises with all the relevant clauses from the highest/ successful bidder, as confirmed by the Tender Inviting Authority and as stipulated in the Circular dated 22.07.2014. Consequently, the connected M.P.s are closed. No order as to costs.' 8. In light of the aforesaid, seeing as the procedure set out under Circular dated 22.07.2014 is, admittedly, in vogue till date, the request of the petitioners for a modification of the procedure now, is not liable to be accepted. If at all they are of the view that the procedure set out under the Circular is erroneous or inequitable, it is for them to challenge the same, in a manner known to law. 9. The second contention raised by the petitioners is that though the website of TASMAC provides for downloading of the tender form as well as the option of securing the same by way of a physical copy, the second option has not been offered and officials of TASMAC insist that the form only be downloaded from the website. According to the petitioner, the forms downloaded from the website are incomplete. Learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC denies the aforesaid allegations. 10. In my view, the above complaints, touching on facts, are matters that may well be, and must, be sorted out by TASMAC forthwith. TASMAC will ensure that the forms, complete in all respects, are made available to interested persons, both manually as well as online, forthwith. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners requests that the proceedings of award of tender be videographed. However, this may not be necessary, in light of the confirmation by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that CCTV cameras are available in Tiruvallur East. 12. It is made clear that the said CCTV cameras will be functional on the date of opening of bids. 13. These writ petitions are disposed in the aforesaid terms. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No Costs.