Madras High Court
M/S.Suez International Company vs The Managing Director on 25 March, 2019
Author: D. Krishnakumar
Bench: D. Krishnakumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.03.2019
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.24608 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.28652 of 2018
1 M/s.Suez International Company
incorporated under the laws of the
Republic of France Acting through
Mr.Rajesh Adhyam,
Vice President Sales & Business Devt.
Unitech Business Park, Second Floor,
South City 1, Gurgaon 122001 Haryana. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Managing Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board No.1 Pumping station Road,
Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002
2 The Superintending Engineer (contracts & Monitoring),
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping station Road,
Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002.
3 AECOM India Pvt.Ltd.
Through its Authorised Represenatative,
No.9/F Infinity Towers C, DLF Cyber city DLF,
Phase II, Gurgaon Haryana.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
4 M/s.Cobra Instalaciones Y servicios
Through its Authorised Representative,
28016 Calle de Cardinal Marcelo Spinola,
10 28016 Madrid, Spain.
5 Tetcon Engineering & Construction L.L.C
Through its Authorised Representative,
GR Complex II Floor,
Door No.407-408 Anna salai,
SIDCO Industrial Estate Chennai
6 Acciona Agua S.A.
Rep by its Indian subsidiary Acciona Aqua
India Pvt. Ltd.,
405 tower a Jasola district Centre,
New Delhi. ... Respondents
PRAYER:The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to treat
the 4th Respondent as technically non-responsive and consequently treat the
petitioner as the only Technically Responsive Bid in Tender No. CNT/WSS/
ICB/KfW/DESAL/012/2016-17 floated by the 1st and 2nd Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Seethapathy
For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh, Standing Counsel
1&2
For Respondents : Mr.Somayaji, Senior Counsel
4&5 for Mr.P.J.Rishikesh
For Respondent No.6: Ms.Sameetha Chatrapathy
*****
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
ORDER
On the last hearing date viz., 22.03.2019, after elaborate arguments advanced by the parties, the learned Advocate General has stated that as per the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000, the report has been placed before the Tender Scrutiny and Evaluation Committee to evaluate the Responses and the said Committee has gone into entire proceedings and consider the eligibility of the Tenderers. But it is agreed by the learned Advocate General that no final decision has been taken by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board based on the Evaluation Committee's report.
2. Under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, the Tender Accepting Authority viz., the 1st respondent has to intimate the information regarding the decision taken and the name and address of the tenderer whose tender has been accepted along with the reasons for rejection of other tenders to the appropriate Tender Bulletin Officer. Thereafter, as per Section 11 of the Act, if any tenderer aggrieved by the order passed by the Tender Accepting Authority under section 10 may have the right to challenge the said decision by way of appeal to the Government as specified under the Act.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
3. On the last occasion, after recording the statement made by the learned Advocate General, at the request of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, this matter is posted today to enable the Petitioner counsel to get necessary instructions from the parties. Today, as a residual argument, the learned senior counsel requests this court that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, in the event of any adverse decision is taken by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board.
4. Therefore, in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, at this juncture, the prayer in the Writ Petition is not maintainable and hence, the same is liable to be rejected on the ground that the Writ Petitioner approached this court in the premature stage.
5. It is open to the 1st respondent/Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, to take a decision for finalising the tender and the same shall be intimated to the appropriate Tender Bulletin Officer as per Section 10 of the Act and the communication of the said decision shall also be sent to the the name and address of the tenderer whose tender has been accepted along with the reasons for rejection of other tenders. It is made clear that it is left open to the parties aggrieved to agitate before the appropriate forum and raise all the grounds and the defence, if so advised. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances narrated, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
25.03.2019 Speaking/Non Speaking order Index : Yes/No vaan/nvsri Note:Issue order copy on 27.03.2019 To 1 The Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1 Pumping station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002 2 The Superintending Engineer (contracts & Monitoring), Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002. http://www.judis.nic.in 6 D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J, vaan W.P.No.24608 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.28652 of 2018 Dated: 25.03.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in