Madras High Court
M. Vasudevan vs Chennai Metropolitan on 4 February, 2011
Author: R. Sudhakar
Bench: R. Sudhakar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.2.2011
CORAM:-
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR
W.P. No.2475 of 2011
..........
M. Vasudevan .... Petitioner
Vs.
1 CHENNAI METROPOLITAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, EGMORE,
CHENNAI-8.
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
CW, CMDA, GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, EGMORE,
CHENNAI- 8. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from opening of the Finance Bid for Tender Notice No.4/2010-2011 dt.22/11/2010 viz. collection of Vehicle Parking Fees from Vehicle parked at Parking Space available in Double Level Basement in CMBT, Koyambedu Chennai-600 107 without any intimation to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr. A. Muthukumar
For Respondents : Mr. J. Ravindran
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to forbear the respondents from opening of the Finance Bid for Tender Notice No.4/2010-2011 dt.22/11/2010 viz. collection of Vehicle Parking Fees from Vehicle parked at Parking Space available in Double Level Basement in CMBT, Koyambedu Chennai-600 107 without any intimation to the petitioner.
2. The second respondent floated a sealed tender cum auction notice for the purpose of granting licence for collection of Vehicle Parking Fees from Vehicle parked at Parking Space available in Double Level Basement in CMBT, Koyambedu Chennai-600 107. The tender notification dated 22.11.2001 is based on two cover system. One is the technical bid and the other is the price bid. The petitioner is one among the several persons, who participated in the tender and submitted documents along with application dated 10.12.2010. The technical parameters was considered and according to the petitioner, the respondents did not communicate the evaluation result of the technical bid submitted by all the persons, who have bid for the tender.
3. On the contrary, according to the petitioner, the respondents are with the process of opening of the financial bid. The reason for not considering the petitioner's tender in the financial bid was not informed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Heard Mr. J.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. The plea canvassed by the petitioner's counsel is contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in tenders Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 43 of 1998) (herein after referred to as 'The Act'). Section 10 of the Act provides the manner in which evaluation and acceptance of the tender should be done. The provision of the Act also provides for maintaining utmost secrecy in the matter of awarding tenders. Clause 7 of Section 10 of the Act reads as follows:-
" ... (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."
Further, clause 10 of the tender documents regarding opening of tenders reads as follows:-
"10. Opening of Tenders:-
1. The Pre-qualification document will be opened at office of the Chief Executive Officer, CMDA, 1st floor, Tower-I, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.8 on 10.12.10 at 3.30 p.m. in the presence of the tenderers or their authorised representative who choose to be present. After detailed evaluation of the pre-qualification document, price bid (cover-II) of the qualified contractors who satisfy the eligibility criteria alone will be opened. The date and time of opening of price bid will be informed only to the qualified tenderers by the Superintending Engineer."
6. The above clause is in accordance with the Section 10(7) of the Act. Therefore, as and when the tender bulletin is issued, after conclusion, the aggrieved person or persons may challenge the same in accordance with law. The respondents are not obliged in law to inform the rejection of one or other persons at the pre-qualification stage. The reason for rejection of technical bid will be part of the tender bulletin. The petitioner is entitled to challenge at that stage if so advised. The relief sought for is contrary to the provisions as above and the writ petition is premature.
7. Finding no merits, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2011 is dismissed. No costs.
ra To 1 CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI-8.
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CW, CMDA, GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI 8