V. Soundararajan vs The General Manager Tasmac Ltd., Talamuthu Natarajan Maligai Egmore Chennai 8, The District Manager Tasmac Ltd., Plot No. 14, 14A, 15-18 Sidco Industrial Estate Complex Military Road, Chevelimedu Village, Orikkai Post Kancheepuram District and B. Muthulakhsmi

M. Jaichandren

This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 7.12.2011, and to consequently direct the second respondent to accept the bid of the petitioner. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, in spite of the petitioner having the necessary experience and having fulfilled all the tender conditions, the application of the petitioner had been rejected. Instead, the third respondent had been given the contract for transporting Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Beer, from the depot situated at Pallavaram, to the various retails units of TASMAC.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 had placed the original records relating to the present case before this Court and had submitted that the petitioner had not fulfilled all the necessary tender conditions. He had pointed out that the petitioner had not complied with the requirements, as prescribed in clauses 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the tender conditions.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 had also submitted that instead of submitting the tender form in Triplicate, only one copy has been submitted. Further, the petitioner had claimed that he had fifteen years of experience in the transporting line. However, sufficient documents had not been enclosed to substantiate the said claim. It had also been submitted that in case of a dispute arising between the petitioner and TASMAC, the matter should be settled only by way of arbitration, as per clause 22 of the tender document. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been in a position to refute the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner ought to settle the dispute only by way of arbitration, as per clause 22 of the tender document. As such, the writ petition is not maintainable, at this stage. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.