Arockiamatha Transport vs The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and Others

K. Ravichandra Babu, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent dated 08.10.2015 rejecting the tender of the petitioner and the consequential order passed by the first respondent dated 09.10.2015 confirming the tender in favour of the fourth respondent.

The case of the petitioner is as follows:

"For the period from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017, the respondent Corporation called for tender for transport contract for all the regions including the Pudukkottai region through tender notification dated 18.06.2015. The petitioner submitted the tender and was found eligible in Part I qualification bid. Thereafter, when Part-II price bid was opened, the petitioner was found L1 (Lowest 1) in respect of Pudukkottai region FCI and NON FCI. However insofar as the other regions are concerned, his tenders were rejected, since he quoted highest price. Insofar as the Pudukkottai region FCI and NON FCI, where the petitioner''s price bid was found as L1, negotiations were called for. The petitioner submitted the particulars sought for by the Official respondents including Income Tax particulars and works done by him in the earlier years. However the first respondent has not issued confirmation order to the petitioner. On the other hand, the present impugned orders are passed."

The first respondent filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 also. It is stated therein as follows:

"(i) On 03.07.2015, technical bid was opened and it was found that the petitioner was technically qualified. The price bid was then opened on the same day and the Tender Committee found that the petitioner to be L1 tenderer. However one Saravana Transport, Pudukkottai filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 14365 of 2015 alleging that the petitioner herein has not complied with the tender conditions by furnishing the required documents. It was stated in the said Writ Petition that the petitioner never transported rice or any other essential commodities and that the records in relation to 2011-2012 have been fabricated and manipulated for the purpose of grabbing the tender. Though the said Writ Petition was subsequently withdrawn, the tender documents submitted by the petitioner herein were again scrutinized and it was found that the petitioner has not produced certificate from the concerned Authority in respect of the turn over for specific commodity of good grains for three assessment years namely 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.

(ii) As per the tender condition Part I qualification bid, the average annual turn over of Rs. 2 Crores in respect of transportation of rice, sugar, etc., should be duly certified by the concerned Authority. However no such certificate issued by the concerned Authority was produced by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was disqualified in the tender and the next lowest tenderer viz., the fourth respondent, who has fulfilled all the requirements, was called for negotiations. The fourth respondent offered revised rates and matched the rates with the petitioner and hence he was appointed as the Food Corporation of India movement transport contractor in Pudukkottai District for the period from 2015-2017 by issuing confirmation order on 09.10.2015."

The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit and submitted as follows:

"The fourth respondent produced necessary certificates from the concerned Authority and on the other hand, the petitioner has not complied with the requisite tender conditions viz., production of certificate from the concerned Authority. Though the petitioner was the lowest tenderer, no confirmation or proceedings was issued in favour of the petitioner and no agreement was entered into with them. When the complaint was received by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, the tender committee revisited the tender documents and found that the petitioner did not fulfill the minimum requirement. Therefore, the petitioner''s tender was rightly rejected and the contract was awarded to this respondent, as this respondent has matched the price of L1 rate as required by the Corporation. From the date of award of contract, this respondent has been providing lorries and operating transport movement, also by signing agreement on 12.10.2015."

Heard Mr. V. Panneer Selvam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. P. Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court.

The petitioner participated in the tender process. Equally, the fourth respondent has also participated in respect of the same work. It is true that the petitioner was found qualified in the qualification bid (Part I) and thereafter his price bid was also found to be the lowest one viz., L1. However, before issuing the confirmation order in favour of the petitioner, the Corporation, based on the averments made in a Writ Petition filed by a third party before this Court making certain allegations against the petitioner that he has not produced the relevant documents, re-scrutinized the tender documents of the petitioner once again and found that the petitioner has not filed the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and the other documents as sought for in the tender notification in Clause VII, which reads as follows:

"Tenderer must have an average annual turnover of Rupees Two Crore for the proceeding three Assessment years i.e., 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in transportation of Rice, Sugar, Wheat, Paddy and Dhall with the details of quantity and commodity transported should be produced duly certified by the concerned authority and also duly certified by the Chartered Accountant and produce xerox copy of Income Tax return filed in the name of tenderer or firm with I.T. Department office seal, profit and loss statement, Balance sheet, SARAL/Form 2/2D duly attested by the Chartered Accountant(Annexure-III)."

A perusal of the terms and conditions of the tender would show that all the documents referred to in Part-I should be enclosed along with the qualification bid. Therefore, it is evident that if any one of the document is not filed along with the qualification bid, certainly it is open to the Authorities to reject the tender. In this case, the petitioner has not filed the above documents referred to in Column VII of Part I documents and when the same is found by the Authorities, they rejected the tender and such rejection has taken place well before issuing any confirmation order to the petitioner. Unless and until the tender is confirmed in favour of the petitioner, they cannot have any vested right merely because they happened to be L1, since the respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to see and get satisfied as to whether the tenderer to whom the contract is to be awarded is fully eligible and qualified person, as per the terms and conditions of the contract. If they found that such person is not eligible or qualified as per the terms and conditions, they are entitled to reject the same with which this Court cannot interfere unless it is found that such rejection is unreasonable or arbitrary.

In this case, one of the documents required to be produced along with Part-I tender, have not been furnished, the petitioner ought not to have been considered for price bid at all. However he was considered for the price bid without taking note of such material defect. The respondents 1 to 3 should have been more careful and vigilant in scrutinising the documents. Merely because there was some lapse and consequently the petitioner was considered for the price bid and found to be L1, it would not automatically entitle them to get the contract. Needless to say that the qualification of the tenderer has to be considered only under Part-I viz., qualification bid and therefore even before confirming the tender in favour of the petitioner, the Authorities have found the mistake and rectified the same and consequently rejected the tender of the petitioner. Therefore I find no reasons to interfere with the same.

As the fourth respondent is found to be fully qualified and has also matched the rate with L1 as quoted by the petitioner, I find no financial loss to the Corporation as well. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.