AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—The petitioner has questioned the tender notice bearing nos.2/2005 & 3/2005 published in ""Dinamani"" Tamil daily dated
7.3.2005 in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, he was present in the bank''s premises on 22.3.2005 with cash for taking demand draft
with a proposal to take part in the tender process. He saw a notice affixed in front of the bank to the effect that the tender will not be received on
22.3.2005 due to the bank officers'' strike and the sealed tenders will not be opened on 22.3.2005 and that the last date for receipt of tenders and
the opening date will be intimated later. On believing the said notice, he was forced to return and thereafter, without any further intimation, the
tenders were received from various persons on 23.3.2005 and they were opened and the bid of K.K. Rangasamy, the second respondent was
accepted.
On the above averments, the petitioner has questioned the tender notices on the ground that as per Rule 6(2) of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the tender notification came to an end on 22.3.2005 and, therefore, the authorised officer ought to have called for
fresh tenders in terms of the said Rule. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that he was not given opportunity to participate in the tender
process, though he was ready and willing and therefore the impugned notices are liable to be set aside.
The contention of the petitioner that after the expiry of the last date viz., 22.3.2005, the authorised officer ought to have caused a public notice
calling for fresh tenders cannot be accepted on the facts of this case. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was present in the bank''s
premises on 22.3.2005 and there is no dispute that on the said date there was a strike by the officers and the bank did not function. There is also
no dispute that on the next date viz., 23.3.2005, the authorised officer has received as many as 23 tenders including the tenders of the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.11209 & 11214 of 2005. The authorised officer had already received five tenders before 23.3.2005. He has considered all the 28
tenders and the bid made by the second respondent was accepted, as it was the highest. Though it is claimed by the petitioner that he was not
informed of the next date on which the tenders will be accepted, in the supplemental counter affidavit the branch manager of the bank has
specifically stated that he had orally informed all the individuals who were present in the bank''s premises to submit their tenders on 22.3.2005 that
the tenders will not be received on the said date due to the strike and that the same will be received on the next day. Law is well settled that when
the facts are in dispute, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution is impermissible, as this Court would not be
competent to go into the disputed questions of fact. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in "" A.C. Thalwal Vs. High Court of Himachal
Pradesh and Others, "", has held that the High Court cannot entertain the writ petition on disputed questions of fact. The said judgment was
followed by the Supreme Court in "" Rourkela Shramik Sangh Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another, "".
In "" Thansingh Nathmal and Others Vs. A. Mazid, Superintendent of Taxes, "", the Supreme Court has held that the High Court does not
generally enter upon a determination of question which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ
is claimed. In "" AIR 1997 993 (SC) "", the Supreme Court has held that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of The Constitution is not
akin to appellate power, as it is only a supervisory power. While exercising the said power, the Court does not normally go into or adjudicate upon
the disputed questions of fact, especially where the relevant facts are disputed and which dispute calls for an elaborate enquiry which cannot be
conveniently done by the High Court in a writ petition.
For all the above reasons, we find no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected W.P.M.P. & W.V.M.Ps. are also dismissed.