Madras High Court
G.Ramesh Murali vs K.Veeraputhiran on 13 June, 2014
Equivalent citations: AIR 2014 MADRAS 179
Author: V.Ramasubramanian
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian, V.M.Velumani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.06.2014 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Writ Appeal (MD) No.449 of 2014 G.Ramesh Murali ... Appellant Vs. 1.K.Veeraputhiran 2.The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Dindigul. 3.The Tamil Nadu Sports Development Authority, Rep. by its District Sports Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul. ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 06.03.2014 made in W.P.(MD)No.3716 of 2014 on the file of this Court. !For Appellant : Mr.N.Sathish Babu ^For Respondents 2&3 : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Government Pleader. For 1st Respondent : Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J.) This appeal arises out of an order passed in a writ petition filed by the first respondent herein directing the transfer of licence to put up stalls during a temple festival, from the appellant to the first respondent herein.
2.Heard Mr.N.Sathish Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 3.
3.There is a famous temple by name Malaikottai Mariyamman Temple in Dindigul Town. A festival used to be conducted every year in the Tamil month of Masi for about three weeks. During celebrations, the authorities used to hold a Trade Fair in a play ground belonging to the third respondent herein, located just behind the temple. As part of the trade fair, several stalls used to be put up and a lot of items of entertainment value as in theme parks for children, used to be provided.
4.In the festival that was to be conducted for the year 2014, the District Collector, Dindigul selected the appellant herein obviously and admittedly, without following any procedure and issued an order dated 03.01.2014, entrusting to the appellant the licence to conduct a trade fair and run a theme park for a period of three weeks. It is relevant to point out here that the appellant herein was entitled to recover the investment made by him from vendors as well as service providers of the theme park.
5.Upon coming to know of the grant of this public largess by the District Collector to the appellant without any process of selection, the first respondent came up with a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.1621 of 2014. The first respondent contended in the writ petition that had a tender been floated or an advertisement issued, he would have even quoted Rs.20 lakhs for taking the licence. The appellant merely quoted a sum of Rs.13,96,500/-. Finding that the grant of licence to the appellant was contrary to law and arbitrary, the learned Judge passed an order on 28.02.2014, directing the first respondent herein to bring a demand draft for Rs.20 lakhs. The case was adjourned to 04.03.2014. On 04.03.2014, the first respondent herein came with a demand draft for Rs.20 lakhs drawn in favour of the District Collector.
6.Thereafter, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition by a final order dated 06.03.2014, directing the District Collector to receive the amount of Rs.20 lakhs from the first respondent and transfer the licence in the name of the first respondent. Immediately, after the said order, the third respondent herein which is the owner of the play ground where the trade fair was to be held, advised the first respondent to deposit the demand draft of Rs.20 lakhs with the District Collector. Accordingly, the first respondent did so.
7.But without complying with the said order, the appellant came up with the above writ appeal, and sought an interim stay. The writ appeal came up for admission on 17.03.2014. By this time, the temple festival had already gone on for more than two weeks and the trade fair was to last only for a couple of days more. In other words, the order of the learned Judge dated 06.03.2014, was virtually frustrated by the appeal filed by the appellant. Though the appeal was filed within the period of limitation, it was filed in such a manner that even the dismissal of the writ appeal on 17.03.2014 would not have actually caused any impact upon the appellant.
8.Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances, we ordered notice in the writ appeal on 17.03.2014 and thereafter took the writ appeal for hearing.
9.During the interregnum period between the date of disposal of the writ petition namely 06.03.2014 and the date of the above writ appeal namely 17.03.2014, the appellant played another masterstroke. The appellant took advantage of one portion of the order of the learned Judge which directed the District Collector to refund the expenses incurred by the appellant in putting up the stalls for the conduct of the exhibition and submitted a claim with the District Collector for a sum of Rs.30,39,096/-. In view of such a shocking claim made by the appellant, the writ petition was requested to be taken up by the parties before the learned Judge himself, for being mentioned on 14.03.2014. On that date, the learned Judge clarified that the amount refundable to the appellant shall be decided separately. It is only thereafter that the writ appeal came up for admission before us on 17.03.2014.
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. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge stands effectively frustrated by the appellant possibly with the connivance of the official respondents who are the respondents 2 and 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 laks before the learned Judge, the first respondent has demonstrated that the respondents 2 and 3 could have at least got a revenue of Rs.20 lakhs.
12.Therefore, it has to be seen whether at least the finding of the learned Judge that there was no transparency in the matter of awarding of licence to the appellant is correct or not.
13.The District Collector has filed a counter affidavit before us. In the counter affidavit, he has taken a very interesting stand namely that a tender notification was issued and affixed in all Government Offices for the purpose of awarding this largess and that only two persons submitted bids. According to the District Collector, the bid amount submitted by the appellant was 5% more than the amount collected last year. Therefore, the District Collector, has claimed that that procedure was followed. But the above stand taken by the District Collector is hardly convincing. Insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, the grant of public largess is regulated by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. The Act contemplates a detailed procedure to be followed. The affixture of notices inviting tenders only in Government offices alone is not the method prescribed under the Act. By affixing the notices only in Government offices, the District Collector certainly violated the provisions of the statutes.
14.The Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 was enacted with a view to promote healthy competition among tenderers and to provide fair and equitable opportunities to all tenderers. Its intention was also to maximise economy in Government procurement. Under Section 4 of the Act, no tender shall be invited or accepted by any authority after the commencement of the Act, except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act. Under Section 9 of the Act, the Tender Inviting Authority should invite tenders in the form of a notice. The notice should be communicated to the Bulletin Officers according to the value of the procurement. The notice inviting tenders is required to be published under Section 9(3) of the Act in daily newspapers having wide circulation, depending upon the value of the procurement prescribed. As a matter of fact, a detailed procedure is prescribed for the evaluation of the tenders under Section 10 and a statutory remedy of appeal is also provided under Section
11. But all these procedures have been thrown to the wind by the District Collector and the tender in question has been granted to the appellant, at his whims and fancies.
15.However, when a public largess is granted in violation of the statutory provisions, the only thing that a Court do is to set aside the grant and to direct the official respondents to put up the largess for a fresh tender process. But unfortunately the learned Judge accepted the offer made by the first respondent. This is perhaps due to the fact that the temple festival was about to begin on 28.02.2014 when the writ petition was taken up for hearing.
16.But in any case, the fact that the exhibition was about to commence within a few days, cannot be the reason for the learned Judge to accept the offer made by the first respondent. The learned Judge was wrong in accepting the offer made by the first respondent across the bar to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs and directing the District Collector to transfer the licence in favour of the first respondent. Hence, the order of the learned Judge is liable to be set aside.
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 at least to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs as demonstrated before the learned Judge. Therefore, the only way in which the wrong 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, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Dindigul.
2.The Tamil Nadu Sports Development Authority, Rep. by its District Sports Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.