AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—It has been stated that the second Respondent had issued a notification, dated 15.5.2009, calling for tenders for the
various items connected with Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, for the fasli year 1419 (2009). The Petitioner was wanting to participate in the
tender process for holding a stall for the ''prasadams''. Therefore, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs and had also furnished a solvency
certificate for a further sum of Rs. 20 lakhs. The tender had been conducted, on 5.6.2009. The Petitioner was the successful bidder, as he had
quoted Rs. 52,05,000/-.
Pursuant to the bid made by the Petitioner, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-, on 15.6.2009. As per the tender conditions, he should
have paid the entire amount by 1.7.2009. However, as he could not collect the materials necessary for starting the stall and as he could not engage
competent persons for preparing the ''prasadams'', he had informed the second Respondent, on 18.6.2009, about his inability to start the stall and
requested the second Respondent to make alternative arrangements.
It has been further stated that the third Respondent was the second highest bidder in the tender process, held on 5.6.2009, as he had offered
Rs. 32,09,000/-, as the bid amount. He had offered to accept the tender contract for the same amount of Rs. 52,05,000/-, bid by the Petitioner.
The temple authorities had accepted the offer made by the third Respondent, and had confirmed the tender contract in favour of the third
Respondent, on receiving the entire amount of Rs. 52,05,000/- from him. Therefore, there was no loss for the second Respondent temple.
However, the first Respondent, by his order, dated 22.10.2009, had instructed the second Respondent to retain the amount paid by the Petitioner,
as profit for the second Respondent temple. Further, he had directed the second Respondent to inform the Petitioner that he cannot participate in
any tender, in any of the temples in the State of Tamil Nadu, in future. The second Respondent had informed the Petitioner about the order of the
first Respondent, by his letter, dated 23.11.1999. In such circumstances, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the first and the second Respondents, it has been stated that two tenders had been received, one from
L. Ramasamy and another from P.M. Ramaswamy, the Petitioner in the present writ petition. They had submitted the necessary demand drafts for
Rs. 20,00,000/-, as deposit, as per the tender conditions. Before opening the tenders, an auction was conducted, on 5.6.2009, at the second
Respondent temple premises. Both the tenderers had participated in the auction. P.M. Ramasamy, the writ Petitioner herein, was the successful
bidder at the said auction at Rs. 52,05,000/-. Before confirming the auction, the tenders were opened. It was found that L. Ramasamy had bid at
Rs. 37,58,000/- and P.M. Ramasamy had bid at Rs. 25,00,000/-. In such circumstances, the auction had been confirmed in favour of the writ
Petitioner at Rs. 52,05,000/-, subject to the approval of the first Respondent.
While so, P.M. Ramasamy the writ Petitioner, who was the successful bidder in the auction, had sent a letter to the Joint
Commissioner/Executive Officer of the second Respondent Temple, on 18.6.2009, stating that he could not collect the materials necessary for
starting the ''prasadam'' stall and that he could not engage competent persons for preparing ''prasadam'' and for managing the staff. He had also
requested for alternative arrangements being made. It had also been stated that the licence granted earlier, for fasli 1418, was to end, on
30.6.2009 and the new licensee had to start the business, from 1.7.2009. Therefore, sufficient time was not available to conduct a re-auction
before the commencement of the next fasli year.
The writ Petitioner had created a piquant situation affecting the routine procedures, which were being followed in licencing the various rights of
the second Respondent temple. In view of the urgency involved, the third Respondent had agreed to pay the highest bid amount, which had been
quoted by the writ Petitioner. The trust Board of the second Respondent temple, by its resolution No. 67, dated 19.6.2009, had resolved to give
the licence to the third Respondent, who was the next highest bidder for the same amount of Rs. 52,05,000/-, as he was willing to run the
''prasadam'' stall, for the fasli year 1419.
It had also been stated that the trust board had passed a resolution requesting for permission to impose a ban on the writ Petitioner from
participating in the auctions conducted in the temples in the State of Tamil Nadu, in order to avoid similar incidents from taking place. The trust
board had also resolved that the writ Petitioner should forfeit the amount of Rs. 27,00,000/- paid by him. Based on the resolution of the trust
board, a report had been sent to the first Respondent, on 20.6.2009. The said report had been accepted by the first Respondent and the decision
had been communicated to the Petitioner.
The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned order of the first Respondent, dated
22.10.2009, is arbitrary, illegal and void, as it is contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender notification, dated 15.5.2009. The decision of
the first and the second Respondents that the Petitioner would forfeit the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs, deposited by him at the time of his participating in
the tender process and an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs, which had been paid by the Petitioner, as part of the bid amount, cannot be sustained in the eye
of law.
Further, the decision to ''black list'' the Petitioner, preventing him from participating in the auctions that may be conducted in respect of the
various temples in the State of Tamil Nadu, is arbitrary and illegal. There is no condition in the tender notification, dated 15.5.2009, that the
tenderers should make earnest money deposits, before participating in the tender process. Further, there is nothing stated in the said tender
notification that the Petitioner would forfeit the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs deposited by him in case of his default, when there is no actual loss caused
to the second Respondent temple by such default.
10 He had also submitted that this Court can interfere with the decisions of the first and the second Respondents, if such decisions are contrary to
law. Even though certain contractual obligations had arisen between the writ Petitioner and the second Respondent temple, it cannot be said that
the writ petition is not maintainable, as there has been a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the well established canons of law.
He had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions.
1) Mohammad Sultan Rowther v. Naina Mohammad and Ors. AIR 1973 Mad 233
2) K. Parthasarathy v. Member Secretary, C.M.D.A. and Anr. 2010 CIJ 25 Mad (1)
3) Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India v. Dvi Ispat Ltd. and Ors. 2010 CIJ 341 ALJ and
4) State of Rajasthan Vs. Botamal Sachdeva (Dead) through his Lrs., .
Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first and the second Respondents had submitted that the present writ petition filed
by the Petitioner is not maintainable, as the impugned decision of the first Respondent, dated 22.10.2009, is in respect of certain contractual
obligations, which had arisen pursuant to the tender process that had taken place, based on the tender notification, dated 15.5.2009. Since, the
authorities of the second Respondent temple had been put to severe hardship and mental agony, due to the irresponsible behaviour of the writ
Petitioner, in failing to comply with the tender conditions, he is liable to forfeit the deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs made by him, while participating in the
tender process and the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs paid by him, as part of the bid amount.
He had also submitted that it is not open to the Petitioner to state that the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs deposited by him cannot be considered as
earnest money deposit in view of the following decisions:
1) Shri Hanuman Cotton Mills and Others Vs. Tata Air Craft Limited, and
2) Housing Urban Development Authority and another Vs. Kewal Krishan Goel and others,
He had also submitted that a lot of inconvenience had been caused to the authorities of the second Respondent temple, due to the failure of the
Petitioner in complying with the tender conditions. Even though there was no monetary loss, the Petitioner is liable to forfeit the amounts paid by
him due to his default. As disputed facts are involved, it is for the Petitioner to agitate the matter before the appropriate civil forum, in the manner
known to law. The writ petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, as held in the following
decisions.
1) Premji Bhai Parmar and Others Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others,
2) Bareilly Development Authority and Another Vs. Ajay Pal Singh and Others,
3) State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Ghulam Mohd. Dar and Another, and
4) Semalaiappan and Ors. v. The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board CDJ 2010 MHC 1833 Further, the Petitioner has not
challenged the resolution of the trust board of the second Respondent temple, dated 19.6.2009, based on which the first Respondent had passed
the impugned order, dated 22.10.2009. As such the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the first and the
second Respondents and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner has not shown sufficient cause
or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the Petitioner, in the present writ petition. Since, certain disputed facts had arisen in the present case
in respect of the tender process that had taken place, pursuant to the tender notification, dated 15.5.2009, it would not be open to the Petitioner to
invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is for the Petitioner to resolve such factual disputes before an appropriate civil forum, as per the relevant provisions of law, as held by this
Court, in the decision reported in Semalaiappan and Ors. v. The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board CDJ 2010 MHC 1833. In such
circumstances, it is held that the present writ petition filed by the Petitioner, before this Court, is not maintainable. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.
However, it is made clear that it would be open to the Petitioner to move the appropriate civil forum, if so advised, in the manner known to law, to
seek his relief. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.