Madras High Court
P.Anuradha vs The District Collector on 5 September, 2008
Author: P.Jyothimani
Bench: P.Jyothimani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05/09/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD)Nos.5553 to 5555 of 2008 and connected Miscellaneous Petitions P.Anuradha ... Petitioner in W.P.5553 / 08 S.Pitchai ... Petitioner in W.P.5554 / 08 KR.Raja ... Petitioner in W.P.5555 / 08 Vs 1. The District Collector Sivagangai District Sivagangai. 2. The Superintending Engineer (Highways) Alagar Kovil Road Madurai. 3. The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Collectorate Sivagangai. 4. Head Drafts Man (Highways) Collectorate, Sivagangai. PRAYER Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the tender notification No.15/08-09/Mu.Va.Thou.A dated 29.05.08 of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the tender for the works referred in Item Nos. 2,9 & 10 (in W.P.No.5553 / 08), 4, 78, 24 & 27 (in W.P.No.5554 / 08), 25, 28, 30 and 67 (in W.P.No.5555 / 08) respectively as per the tender notification dated 29.05.08. Contempt Petition (MD) No.208 of 2008 in W.P.(MD)No.5299/2008 and Contempt Petition (MD) No.209 of 2008 in W.P.(MD)No.5300/2008 #M.Shanthi .. Petitioner in Cont.208/08 S.P.Krishnan .. Petitioner in Cont.209/08 vs. $1. Pangaj Kumar Bansal The District Collector Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2. V.Palaniyappan The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Collectorate Sivagangai. 3. Govindharajan Head Drafts Man (Highways) Collectorate, Sivagangai. .. Respondents in both Contempt Petitions. Contempt Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.5299 and 5300 of 2008 dated 17.06.2008 respectively. W.P.No.5299 / 2008 (Cont.P.No.208 / 08):- PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 4th respondent (in W.P.) to issue Tender Schedules for the work referred in Item Nos.3, 5, 6, 21, 36, 41, 53, 54, 73, 79 of the tender notice dated 03.06.2008 and consider the petitioner tender schedule along with other tender schedules. W.P.No.5300 / 2008 (Cont.P.No.209 / 08):- PRAYER Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 4th respondent (in W.P.) to issue Tender Schedules for the work referred in Item Nos.20, 22, 29 and 30 of the tender notice dated 03.06.2008 and consider the petitioner tender schedule along with other tender schedules. !For petitioners ... Mr.B.Pugalendhi in all the petitions ^For respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar in all the petitions Government Advocate ----- :COMMON ORDER
The above writ petitions have been filed by the writ petitioners challenging the tender notification issued by the third respondent, the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Collectorate, Sivaganga, dated 29.5.2008 in so far as it relates to Item Nos.2, 9, 10, Item Nos.4, 7, 8, 24, 27 and Item Nos.25, 28, 30 and 67 respectively. The said various items relate to laying of roads within the Division of Sivaganga.
2. The petitioners are the registered Class-I contractors of the Highways Department. The notification relates to 86 items of works. As per the notification, the last date for receiving tender schedule from the Divisional Engineer was 16.6.2008 and the submission of filled up tender forms was stated as 19.6.2008 at 3.00 p.m. and the tender forms would be opened on the same day, viz., 19.6.2008 at 3.15 p.m. As per the said notification, registered contractors or the persons having the status of Class-I contractors may apply. As per the note annexed to the said notification, such contractors, apart from being registered contractors, must enclose with the tender forms a certificate to the effect that they are having no arrears of sales tax and also a certificate to the effect that the registration as contractors under the Highways Department subsists.
3. That apart, it is stated in the notification that in respect of Item Nos.1, 2, 49, 50, 51, 52, 70, 71, 72 and 73, application would be issued only when the applicants produce records to show that they own certain machines enumerated therein.
4. The writ petitions are filed on the ground that certain irregularities have been committed which are against the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. It is the grievance of the petitioners that if the value of work is more than Rs.10 lakhs, the tender schedule can be obtained by downloading from websites free of cost and if it is less than Rs.10 lakhs, the prescribed amount has to be paid. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents wantonly divided various works of road laying into 86 items in order to make the value of each item less than Rs.10 lakhs, which according to the petitioners is with an intention to avoid proper competition. It is also their grievance that only two tender schedules were given for all the works and ultimately, the participation was restricted resulting in revenue loss to the Government. It is the case of the petitioners that till the last minute viz., 16.6.2008, which is the date by which tender schedules were to be obtained, the petitioners were made to wait and at the end of the day, on 16.6.2008, the respondents especially, the third respondent virtually denied giving tender schedules and the petitioners made representations on the following days viz., 17th and 18th June, 2008 and in spite of the same, the tender schedules were not issued. It is the case of these three petitioners that in respect of some other contractors who had earlier approached the Court, the third respondent, with regard to the works with which those petitioners were concerned, postponed the opening of tender to 23.6.2008 from 19.6.2008 due to the reason that directions were given by this Court to issue tender schedules. It is, due to the reason that in respect of those petitioners the third respondent postponed the opening of tender to 23.6.2008, the above three writ petitions came to be filed on 23.6.2008 challenging the notification on the ground that the tender schedules had not been issued.
5. Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that some other contractors filed writ petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.5299 of 2008 and 5300 of 2008 and in spite of the direction given by this Court on 17.6.2008 to the third respondent to issue tender schedules, and even on production of orders of Court, tender schedules were not given. Admittedly, those writ petitions relate to different items of works viz., Item Nos. 3, 5, 6, 21, 36, 41, 53, 54, 73 and 79 and Item Nos.20, 22, 29, 30 respectively. Ultimately, in those cases, the non-issue of tender schedules resulted in issuing of contempt notice on behalf of the petitioners therein on 18.6.2008 and subsequently, contempt applications were filed in Contempt Application Nos.208 and 209 of 2008. It is, in those circumstances, the Divisional Engineer, third respondent extended the time for opening the tender forms to 23.6.2008. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, these three writ petitioners should also be given the benefit of extension as given by the third respondent in respect of other petitioners.
6. On the face of it, I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, as per the impugned notification, when the date for receiving the tender schedules was 16.6.2008 and the last date for submission of tender forms was 19.6.2008, merely because in respect of other two persons who had come to this Court, certain orders were passed and time for opening the tender forms was extended to 23.6.2008 on the ground that the tender schedules were issued to them as per directions of this Court on 19.6.2008, the writ petitioners cannot equate themselves with those persons who had approached the Court at appropriate time. On the ground that the writ petitioners have not approached this Court well in advance, these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. If really, the grievance of the writ petitioners are genuine, they would have approached this Court much earlier on 16.6.2008. Inasmuch as the petitioners in the writ petitions have not resorted to the same, they cannot compare themselves with other parties who have approached this Court on 16.6.2008 itself.
7. It is also pertinent to note that the writ petitioners cannot take advantage of any order of this Court in a different case to explain the reason to approach this Court belatedly. The petitioners approached this Court belatedly without showing any reason for filing the writ petitions on 23.6.2008. The writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief as claimed in the writ petitions and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
8. In respect of contempt applications in C.A.Nos.208 and 209 of 2008, it is seen that the applicant in C.A.No.208 of 2008 who is a registered contractor in the Highways Department has intended to apply in respect of Item Nos.3, 5, 6, 21, 36, 41, 53, 54, 73 and 79. Likewise, the applicant in C.A.No.209 of 2008 also being a registered contractor has intended to apply in respect of Item Nos.20, 22, 29 and 30. It is their case that as per the notification, when they approached, the second respondent in the contempt applications, the Divisional Engineer (Highways), Sivaganga, asked them to wait till 16.6.2008 and they were waiting with hope that at least in the evening the tender schedules would be issued. It is also their case that they got demand drafts ready for the purpose of receiving applications on 16.6.2008 and the demand drafts were also delivered to the second respondent in the contempt applications in person. In fact, in these cases, the petitioners have obtained demand drafts on 14.6.2008. Having waited till evening of 16.6.2008 but in vain, the petitioners filed W.P.(MD) Nos.5299 and 5300 of 2008 before this Court on the next date, viz., 17.6.2008 for direction against the Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Sivaganga, who was arrayed as 4th respondent in the writ petitions to issue tender schedules. This Court by order dated 17.6.2008 has disposed of the writ petitions with direction to the second respondent in the contempt applications to issue tender schedules in respect of Items asked for by them forthwith on production of a copy of the said order, however, subject to the compliance of other conditions, viz., payment of necessary amount by way of demand draft.
9. It is the case of the applicants that a copy of the said order dated 17.6.2008 was produced before the second respondent on 18.6.2008 and the second respondent made some adverse comments against the order stating that he is the deciding authority and he would not obey the order. Thereafter, the applicants have rushed to S.T. Courier Office and sent the order copy through courier on 18.6.2008 and according to the applicants, the order copy along with the application was served on the second respondent on 18.6.2008 at 1.00 p.m. and in spite of it, the tender schedules were not given. It is, in those circumstances, the petitioners issued contempt notice on 18.6.2008 telegraphically. It is the case of the applicants that knowing the order of the Court, the second respondent has refused to issue tender schedule. It is also stated in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt applications that the second respondent would create record as if he is going on leave from 18.6.2008 to avoid contempt. In those circumstances, the above contempt applications have been filed praying for punishing the respondents for having committed contempt of order of this Court dated 17.6.2008.
10. When the above said contempt applications which were filed on 19.6.2008 came up before this Court, it was informed that subsequent to the filing of the writ petitions, tender schedules were issued and the petitioners submitted their tender forms by fulfilling the required formalities. Since the petitioners have stated that the second respondent postponed the opening of tender forms in respect of items of works for which they made applications to 23.6.2008, when the matter came up on 19.6.2008, this Court posted the matter on 23.6.2008. However, it is seen on records produced before this Court that on 23.6.2008, the second respondent, the Divisional Engineer has issued notice cancelling the tender in respect of 15 items of works for which the applicants have applied, viz., Item Nos.3, 5, 6, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30, 36, 41, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 79 on the ground that on 23.6.2008 some anti-social elements had set fire the tender box at 12.10 noon, in which tender forms in respect of 15 items got damaged. When the contempt applications came up before this Court again on 24.6.2008, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants brought to the notice of this Court about the abovesaid cancellation of tender in respect of 15 items by the second respondent and this Court directed the third respondent, the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Sivaganga as well as the Inspector of Police, Sivaganga Police Station to be present on 26.6.2008 and directed to produce the entire records. Accordingly, both of them were present on 26.6.2008.
11. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the applicant in contempt application, C.A.No.208 of 2008 has given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Sivaganga stating that when the said applicant proceeded to put her tender schedule in the box at 10.15 a.m. on 23.6.2008, some anti-social elements with deadly weapons obstructed her and thereafter along with other people in the area, the applicant went to the Office of the second respondent and put the tender schedule in the box in spite of the attempt to attack on the contempt petitioner by the anti-social elements like, Chezhiyan by using un- parliamentary words. The contempt petitioner has made the said complaint to the Inspector of Police to take action against those persons and the said complaint was taken on file by the Inspector of Police as Complaint No.189 of 2008.
12. According to the petitioners, thereafter in the afternoon, within one hour of the previous incident, the anti-social elements attempted to set fire the box. The Inspector of Police, Sivaganga who was present in the Court has also stated that there was a group fight between the applicants and other group at the time of putting tender forms in the box which was placed in front of the Office of the second respondent, the Divisional Engineer and the police intervened by giving sufficient protection. It is also stated that after the incident which took place at 12.10 after noon, the second respondent, the Divisional Engineer has given a police complaint at 2.20 p.m. In the First Information Report, the second respondent has stated that at 12.10 noon, there was smoke in the box containing tender schedules due to the conduct of some anti-social elements who had set fire the tender schedules put in the box and requested the Inspector of Police to take appropriate action against the said anti-social elements.
13. Even though in the complaint filed by one of the contempt petitioners, there is a mention about some of the persons who are responsible for the said incident, in the complaint given by the second respondent, the Divisional Engineer, there is no reference about the name of any of such persons. The FIR has been registered in Crime No.415 of 2008 under section 436 IPC. The second respondent who was present in the Court on 23.6.2008 has also produced the covers damaged due to the alleged fire. On verification of the said damaged covers, it is clear that the same cannot be directed to be opened.
14. On the basis of the entire records produced by the learned Government Advocate Mr.D.Sasikumar, it is seen that out of the total 86 works, in respect of 68 works tenders were opened on 19.6.2008 and work orders were issued and in respect of remaining 18 items of works, a reference to the particulars furnished and as available in the records submitted by the second respondent shows that in respect of Item Nos.15, 16 and 17, viz.,
(i) Item No.15: Construction of two row pipe culvert at Km.1/10 of Periyakannanoor Road;
(ii) Item No.16: Special repairs to cause way at Km.1/6 of Ramnad Melur Road to Mallal; and
(iii) Item No.17: Construction of protective work at Km.2/10 of Periyakannanoor Road, auction was not completed since there was no response.
15. In respect of remaining 15 Items, the second respondent passed orders on 23.6.2008 cancelling the tender and the said Items are as follows:
Sl.No. Item No. Name of work
1. 3 Periodical renewal to Satharasankottai - Sooranam Road Km. 6/6 - 6/8, 7/2 - 8/0.
2. 5 Special repairs to Ramnad - Nainarkoil - Andakudi -
Elayankudi - Sivaganga - Melur Road to Thamaraki Road Km. 4/6 - 6/2.
3. 6 Special repairs to Ramnad - Nainarkoil - Andakudi -
Elayankudi - Sivaganga - Melur Road to Thamaraki Road Km. 6/6 - 7/4.
4. 20 Special repairs to Thanjakoor to meet Thiruppuvanam - Pulvaikarai Road Km. 5/0 - 6/0.
5. 21 Special repairs to Thanjakoor to meet Thiruppuvanam - Pulvaikarai Road Km. 13/0 - 14/0.
6. 22 Special repairs to Thanjakoor to meet Thiruppuvanam - Pulvaikarai Road Km. 14/0 - 15/0.
7. 29 Special repairs to Madappuram Road Km. 0/0 - 1/0.
8. 30 Special repairs to Allampatcheri Road Km. 8/0 - 9/0.
9. 36 Periodical renewal to K.Ayyapatti - Puzhuthipatti (via) Piranpatti Road Km. 0/0 - 1/6.
10. 41 Periodical renewal to Nerkuppai - Velangudi Road Km.3/0 - 4/6.
11. 53 Special repairs to Kanadukathan - Kadiapatti Road Km.1/0 - 2/4.
12. 54 Special repairs to Kanadukathan - Kadiapatti Road Km.2/4 - 3/8.
13. 55 Special repairs to Kanadukathan - Kadiapatti Road Km.5/0 - 6/0.
14. 56 Special repairs to Kanadukathan - Kadiapatti Road Km.6/0 - 7/1.
15. 79 Special repairs to Ramnagar - Eluvankottai Road Km.1/0 - 1/8.
16. It is seen from the damaged covers produced by the second respondent before this Court that the following persons have participated whose covers containing tender schedules got damaged:
(1) Manickam - One cover;
(2) Selvam - one cover;
(3) Shanthi (applicant in C.A.No.208/08) - 8 covers; and (4) S.P.Krishnan, (applicant in C.A.No.209/08) - 4 covers. As the said covers are in damaged condition, it is not proper for this Court to direct the second respondent to open the same for awarding of contract.
17. On direction of this Court, the Inspector of Police, Sivaganga has produced the entire papers relating to Cr.No.415/08 registered on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent under section 436 IPC. The records containing the statement of the second respondent show that at the time when the incident of setting fire of the box took place, he came out on information from Accountant Ramani and found that in the place where the box was placed, one Narayanan, Pallathur Ravi, Chengai Maran, Sakla, Thirumalai Ramalingam and one another were present. The above said statement is also confirmed by the statement of Ramani, Accountant who has informed the 2nd respondent about the incident. In addition to that, there are statements obtained by the police under section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Further, the petitioner in Contempt Application No.208/08 has also given a complaint which was registered in Cr.No.189/08 in the same police station and in the said complaint two persons viz., (i) Chezhiyan and (ii) Narayanan of Tiruppathur are shown as accused.
18. In the fittest of the things and also to arrive at the proper method to be followed by the second respondent in proceeding with the tender, I am of the considered view that the Inspector of Police, Sivaganga Police Station should be directed to investigate on the basis of the said two complaints and take appropriate action against all persons who are found to be involved including officials of the second respondent, if the investigation by the Inspector of Police reveals so. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Pughalendhi, in relying upon the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in G.Babu v. A.Shankar reported in 2008 (3) MLJ 1098 is relevant in this regard and the Division Bench has held as follows:
" 34. Whenever an allegation of malpractice in a tender process is brought before a Court by the persons, who participated in the auction, the Court is duty bond to unearth the bona fides of the persons, who advance their contentions, and, in that process, the Court has also to find out the gravity of public interest involved in the matter and render real justice to the parties concerned. When a dispute between private individuals is before the Court, which is connected to the Government tender, the Court ought to be more conscious so as to safeguard the public exchequer. Even though the project in question was commissioned and executed by a party to the litigation, the Court is not fettered to mould the relief and grant it to the party or any person entitled to it. In that context, the prevailing cost of the product involved in the tender shall also be taken into account by the Court with the material available before it. While doing so, the relative hardship among the private parties may also be considered and the Court shall weigh the efforts made by the parties to the said project and make good of them for the benefit of the party, who is eligible to it. The similar projects are bound to be commercial transactions and it may be decided that the party, who has expended for the purpose of contract, should get returns profitably. The Court, on getting satisfied itself with grant of relief on public interest, shall overpower private interest. It may even prefer rational decisions at times, by imposing stringent conditions, to be complied with by a party to the litigation, so as to make the ends of justice to meet."
19. Applying the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as stated above and taking into consideration the entire facts narrated above and the overall conduct of the second respondent as a responsible authority in conducting the tenders in issue, there is certainly suspicion in the conduct of the second respondent. Even though the same is not substantiated by foolproof evidence, the second respondent being an officer authorised to conduct these sort of tenders, especially when the works involved are laying and maintaining of roads to be used by large number of rural masses, is expected to act not only in the interest of public, but also in a bona fide manner.
20. The suspicion as revealed in the conduct of the second respondent is patent on the fact that the second respondent has not only failed to obey the directions of this Court dated 17.6.2008 in not furnishing the tender schedules in time to the petitioners, but by looking into the awarding of contracts in respect of other Items of works as per the notification in respect of which no such incident has been brought to the notice of this Court, the incident relating to the disputed items alone creates a doubt about the conduct of the second respondent. It is only to avoid this sort of malpractices in floating tenders in respect of public works and with an avowed object of providing transparency in public procurement and to regulate the procedure in inviting and accepting tenders, the Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly in its wisdom has enacted the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. In fact, a reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons annexed to the said Act makes it very clear that the intention of the legislature is to prevent recurrence of various irregularities in the matter of issuing tenders which prompted the Government to make such law and the relevant portion reads as follows:
" Statement of Objects and Reasons In the recent past irregularities in the processing of tenders have arisen in the Departments of Government, Public Sectors Undertakings, Statutory Boards etc., due to inadequate publicity of tenders, restricted supply of tender documents and lack of transparency in evaluation and acceptance of tenders.
2. In the Budget speech for the year 1997-98, it has also been announced that in order to prevent recurrence of such irregularities that have arisen in tender procedure due to the interference by the executive, it has been decided to undertake legislation to provide for transparency in the tender processes and to regulate the procedures in inviting and accepting tenders.
3. The Act seeks to give effect to the above decision."
21. The Act is very clear in prohibiting the procurement which means acquisition by purchase of goods or service and also of construction except by way of tender as contemplated in section 3(1) of the Act read with section 2(d) which defines the term 'procurement'. Section 9 enumerates the Functions of the Tender Inviting Authority in clear terms as follows:
"Section 9. Functions of the Tender Inviting Authority.-
(1) The Tender Inviting Authority shall invite tenders in the form of a notice containing such particulars as may be prescribed. (2) The Tender Inviting Authority shall communicate the notice inviting tenders to the Bulletin Officers according to the value of the procurement and within such time as may be prescribed, so as to publish the same in the appropriate Tender Bulletin.
(3) The Tender Inviting Authority shall also publish the notice inviting tenders in Indian Trade Journal and in daily newspapers having wide circulation depending upon the value of the procurement prescribed. (4) The Tender Inviting Authority shall supply the schedule of rates and tender documents in such manner and in such places as may be prescribed to every intending tenderer who has applied for such document."
22. Section 10 which prescribes the procedure for evaluation and acceptance of tender is as follows:
" Section 10. Evaluation and acceptance of tender.-
(1) The Tender Accepting Authority shall cause an objective evaluation of the tenders taking into consideration the schedule of rates as mentioned in the tender document and the prevailing market rate for procurement and comparison of the tenders in accordance with the procedure and criteria specified in the tender document.
(2) After evaluation and comparison of tenders as specified in sub-section (1). The tender Accepting Authority shall accept the lowest tender ascertained on the basis of objective and quantifiable factors specified in the tender document and giving relative weights among them.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), if the Tender Accepting Authority decides that the price of the lowest tender is higher with reference to the prevailing market rate or the schedule of rates, he may negotiate for a reduction of price with that tenderer. (4) If at any time before the acceptance of tender, the Tender Accepting Authority receives information that a tenderer who has submitted tender has been banned by any procuring entity, he shall not accept the tender of that tenderer even if it may be the lowest tender.
(5) In case where two or more tenderers quoted the same price, the Tender Accepting Authority shall split the procurement among such tenderers taking into consideration the experience and credentials of such tenderers. Where such splitting is not possible or could not be done equally, he shall record reasons for the same.
(6) If the Tender Accepting Authority proposes to accept the tender as per the provisions of this section, he shall pass orders accepting the tender together with reasons for such acceptance.
(7) The Tender Accepting Authority shall intimate the information regarding 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 Officers."
23. In fact as against any decision of the tender inviting authority an appeal is provided. The Rules framed under the Act explain in detail as to how the notice inviting tenders should be made by way of publication; as to what are all the evaluation criteria; the supply of tender documents, place and time for receipt of tenders; procedure to be followed at the time of opening of the tenders in Rules 10, 11, 15, 16, 18 and 22 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. If only the evaluation process as contemplated under the Act as well as the Rules is followed scrupulously by the authority contemplated under the Act, there is absolutely no scope for any irregularity affecting the interest of the registered contractors and the interest of public at large. Needless to state that any addition to the stipulation made to the written laws and Rules, it is the authorities concerned who under the Act in performing their functions in a proper manner, who give life and strength to the abovesaid written laws and implementation of the intents of the law makers in its proper perspectives.
24. On the face of the entire facts, there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the second respondent has not taken care in following the procedures as per the Act and the Rules made thereunder and in the absence of the same, as rightly pointed out by the Division Bench of this Court in the abovesaid judgement, this Court certainly has the responsibility to see that the authorities concerned follow the Rules scrupulously.
25. Considering the abovesaid aspects, the following orders are passed:
(i) As stated above, the writ petitions, viz., W.P.Nos.5553, 5554 and 5555 of 2008 stand dismissed;
(ii) The Contempt Application Nos.208 and 209 of 2008 stand ordered as follows:
(a) the second respondent is directed to issue fresh notification inviting tenders from the registered contractors in respect of abovesaid 15 Items along with three remaining Items for which tenders were not completed for want of participants, strictly as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000;
(b) the second respondent shall give opportunity to all the persons who are eligible to participate in such tenders as per the notification without any discrimination; and
(c) the Inspector of Police, Sivaganga Police Station is directed to investigate into the matter thoroughly on the basis of the complaint of the second respondent, the Divisional Engineer, V.Palaniyappan, dated 23.6.2008, which was registered in Cr.No.415/08 along with the complaint of the applicant in Contempt Application No.208/08 [Mrs.Shanthi] dated 23.6.2008, as seen in Receipt No.189/08 issued by the Inspector of Police, Sivaganga Police Station and take appropriate action against all persons involved in the incident including the officials of the second respondent, if there are proper grounds, and file necessary charge sheet before the appropriate Court expeditiously and proceed to prosecute the offenders in accordance with law.
kh To
1. The District Collector Sivagangai District Sivagangai.
2. The Superintending Engineer (Highways) Alagar Kovil Road Madurai.
3. The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Collectorate Sivagangai.
4. Head Drafts Man (Highways) Collectorate, Sivagangai.
5. The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Police Station, Sivagangai.
6. Thiru D.Sasikumar, Government Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.