K. Viswambaran vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The Petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to award the contract in

respect of tender No. GMM/CEP/01/HSS/98-99 for four schools viz., (1) S.L.D. Government Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil, (2)

Government Higher Secondary School, Eraniel, (3) Government Higher Secondary School, Thakkalai, (4) Government Girls Higher Secondary

School, Marthandam, in Kanniyakumari District, to the Petitioner or conduct the bid afresh.

The second Respondent published a tender notice inviting tender for implementation of Computer Education in Government Higher Secondary

Schools at Nagercoil and Kanniyakumari Districts, in leading English arid Tamil dailies on 19.3.1999, notifying that the receipt of the tender

documents would be closed at 1.00 A.M. of 19.4.1999. Among 196 tender applicants, 88 tenderers were found technically qualified, including the

Petitioner and Respondents 4 and 5.

As per the terms and conditions of the tender, bidders must fulfil the following eligibility criteria.

i) The bidder should have at least 3 years experience in delivering Computer Education as on 31.12.98.

ii) The bidder should have trained at least 250 students up to 31.12.98.

iii) The bidder should have a minimum of 2 training centres in the region for which he is bidding or 10 Training centres anywhere in the state of

Tamil Nadu.

iv) The bidder should have at least 5 instructors under their control.

v) The instructors should hold educational qualifications in computer Science from recognised institutions.

vi) The bidder should have adequate financial resources to undertake the contract.

Only after satisfactory fulfilment of conditions (i) to (v), bidders were declared technically qualified and thereafter, their commercial bids were

taken up for opening. The last condition for adequate financial capacity would be verified after opening the commercial bid.

It is stated that the Petitioner submitted the following documents to satisfy the adequate finance resources to undertake the impugned contract.

i) Photocopy of Fixed Deposit from M/s. UTI Bank Ltd for the maturity value of Rs. 17,30,134/- in the name of Thiru Vinesh Keshavji Jesrani

and Ms. P.V. Jesrani of Muscat, Sultanate of Oman matured on 27.4.99

ii) Photocopy of Fixed Deposit receipt from M/s. Karnataka Bank Ltd for the maturity value of Rs. 51,60,168/- in the name of Thiru Ramesh

Patel, Thiru Kumud Patel and Thiru Rajesh Patel of California USA matured on 28.2.99.

iii) A letter from M/s. Eagle Comprehensive Consultancy Services, Chennai -18.

After scrutiny of the above documents, second Respondent came to the conclusion that the Petitioner failed to satisfy the sixth condition referred to

above. Therefore, the contract was finally concluded in favour of Respondents 4 and 5.

Mr. K. Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the second Respondent ought to have accepted the documents

furnished by the Petitioner, referred to above, which would satisfy the Petitioner''s adequate finance source to undertake the contract: and that the

second Respondent arbitrarily and unreasonably had accepted the tender since the fourth Respondent offered tender for seven schools at the rate

of Rs. 17.00 .lakhs per school and the fifth Respondent offered for 38 schools at the rate of Rs. 17.12 lakhs per school, which are higher than the

bid offered by the Petitioner, namely Rs. 12.00 lakhs per school.

Mr. K. Venkataraman, learned Counsel, for the Petitioner also contends that the fourth Respondent did not comply with the condition that he

should run minimum two training centres in the region, for which he has offered his bid or ten training centres any where in the state of Tamil Nadu.

Per contra, Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Addl. Advocate General, referring to the agreements stated in the counter affidavit, explains that the

documents furnished by the Petitioner, referred to above, were not properly supported with the letters of authorisation from the holders of the fixed

deposits in favour of the Petitioner and without such authorisation, the Petitioner is not entitled to claim that he has satisfied adequate financial

resource. He further contends that Respondents 4 and 5 were found technically and financially qualified and hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to

seek the relief, as prayed for.

I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.

Admittedly, the Petitioner is not challenging the award of tender in favour of Respondents 4 and 5, but only seeks a writ of Mandamus to direct

the Respondent to award the contract in respect of the tender mentioned above. In other words, the Petitioner has not challenged the selection of

Respondents 4 and 5. To seek a writ of Mandamus as prayed for, the Petitioner ought to have satisfied the conditions contemplated under the

tender notice. Even though the Petitioner was found to be qualified technically and submitted three documents to satisfy adequate financial

resource, unfortunately he had failed to get letters of authorisation from the holders of fixed deposit, in his favour at the time of submitting his tender

much less at the time of negotiation. The Petitioner, having failed to prove that he was authorised to have the benefit of fixed deposits, referred to

above, is not entitled to complain against the second Respondent that they have failed to appreciate the adequate financial resource of the

Petitioner. On the other hand, the second Respondent has averred in the counter affidavit that Respondents 4 and 5 are found technically and

financially qualified. Therefore, I am obliged to accept the contentions of the learned Addl. Advocate General that the second Respondent has no

option except to hold that the Petitioner had not satisfied adequate financial resource to undertake the contract. Hence, Petitioner has no locus

standi to seek the relief as prayed for. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. Consequently, WMP No. 14249 of 1999 is also dismissed; No costs.

CH/vcs.