PMT Mohan & Company vs Commissioner, Madurai Corporation And Others

V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to forbear the respondents from proceeding with any process in Tender Reference No.Ma.Po.2/Est458/20-21, on the file of the first respondent without considering the tender submitted by the petitioner on 29.01.2021.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the partner in PMT Mohan & Company, which is a registered firm. The petitioner is the first class contractor and as such registered with the Highways Department under Registration No. 3/2020-2021. He was doing contract works in his personal capacity in various Departments under the Government. He carried out various works for the respondent corporation upto the level of Rs.55 lakhs. For the Highways Department, he carried out works upto Rs.2 crores. He made an application on 20.10.2020 to the respondents 1 to 3 to register himself as a contractor. In the month of January 2021, the first respondent Corporation invited tender to carry out the road laying works under Tender Reference No.Ma.Po.2/Est458/20-21. The tender value is Rs.34,69,000/-. The bid submission date is 02.02.2021 and the opening date is 03.02.2021.

He would further submit that the petitioner submitted an online application on 29.01.2021 at Rs.1,00,000/- less than the tender value i.e., Rs.33,69,407/-. The tender was accepted through online along with the scanned copy of the Demand Draft for the payment of EMD. The second respondent has not opened the tender on 03.02.2021 and subsequently, the second respondent negotiated with the petitioner to withdraw the tender application on more than two occasions, but he did not agree. He came to know that the second respondent is inclining to grant the contract in respect of the fourth respondent. He would submit that the tender was finalized in favour of the fourth respondent. The authorities have not issued any communication to the petitioner for rejecting the application of the petitioner and the entire process is illegal as it is done in secrecy and with lack of transparency. Hence the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that already the tender was allotted to the fourth respondent, namely, Mr.P.K.Ravindrakumar and the work was also allotted to him for laying the road and 30 days time was also fixed to complete the work. He would further submit that the fourth respondent has completed the work within the time fixed by the Corporation and the Writ Petition has become infructuous and hence, nothing survives for adjudication herein.

In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The respondents Corporation is directed to return the EMD amount, if any, to the petitioner.

The petitioner made an application on 20.10.2020 to the respondents 1 to 3 to register himself as a contractor. The non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in the respondents' corporation as a registered contractor was a reason for not accepting his tender. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider his representation of the petitioner, dated 20.10.2020 for including him as a contractor and pass appropriate orders on his representation.