1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 11-04-2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.1871 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 Devadas Gandhi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector/Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, Pudukkottai District. 2.The Project Director, The District Rural Development Agency, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Mandamus to direct the respondents to open the price bid of the petitioner in respect of the work of improvements of roads in 3 numbers in package No.PDKT-169-2010-11- Aranthangi Block of Pudukkottai District under NABARD RIDF XVII-2010-11 (Tender Notice Reference:A/1387/2010 dated Nil.01.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent) and to consider the same for evaluation to grant of work order and grant such further or other orders. For Petitioner :: Mr.K.Balasundaram For RR.1 to 3 :: Mr.K.Balasubramanian Addl.Govt.Pleader ***** ORDER The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for the issuance of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to open the price bid of the petitioner in respect of the work of improvements of roads in 3 numbers in package No.PDKT-169-2010-11-Aranthangi Block of Pudukkottai District under NABARD RIDF XVII-2010-11 (Tender Notice Reference:A/1387/2010 dated Nil.01.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent) and to consider the same for evaluation to grant of work order. 2.This writ petition has been filed by a class-I contractor. According to him, the second respondent invited a tender for pre- qualification application and price tender under two cover system for “improvements of roads three numbers in package No.PDKT-169-2010-11- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Aranthangi Block of Pudukkottai District under NABARD RIDF XVII-2010-11. 3.The petitioner participated in the above said tender under a two cover system. The technical bid was originally opened on 01.02.2011 at about 4.30 p.m. According to the petitioner, the technical bid, though opened, it was not stated that his tender was accepted or not. Thereafter he visited the office on 04.02.2011 and enquired about the acceptance of his technical bid. He was informed orally that his technical bid was not accepted. According to him, the respondent has not passed any order till date and rejection of his technical bid is not correct and he has quoted Rs.13 lakhs less than the estimated value. Therefore his bid should have been accepted. 4.Earlier this Court has granted injunction. The respondent has filed a vacate stay petition and counter. In the counter, they would only state that tender was called for on 21.01.2011. It consists of two bids namely technical bid and financial bid. On 01.02.2011, in the presence of the petitioner, the technical bid was opened and it was rejected stating that the cumulative financial turn over of the petitioner for the past three years should have been 150% of the estimated value of works. The 150% of estimated value of works is Rs.1,95,13,500/-, whereas the cumulative financial turn over of the petitioner was only Rs.1,31,28,180/-. There is a shortage of more than Rs.60 lakhs. Therefore technically the petitioner was not entitled to participate and his technical bid was not accepted even on 01.02.2011 itself. It is also pertinent to point out here that the demand draft which was paid by the petitioner was returned to the petitioner even on that date i.e on 01.02.2011. Having received back the demand draft, it was not open for the petitioner now to challenge the tender process especially when the tender itself was confirmed on 04.02.2011 in favour of the highest bidder and he has also not been made as a party here and subsequently, work order itself has been issued as early as on 14.02.2001. The writ petition itself was filed on 15.02.2011. But interim order was passed only on 23.02.2011 and therefore this writ petition and interim order are not maintainable. 5.Heard both sides. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 6.Though the petitioner is a participant in the tender, as far as pre-qualification technical bid is concerned, his technical bid was not accepted. According to the tender notification, the petitioner should have shown 150% over and above the bid value of the tender in the previous three years. As per records, produced, he has shown only Rs.1,31,28,180/-. As per 150%, it comes to Rs.1,95,13,500/-. Therefore according to the counter, the writ petitioner's technical bid was not accepted even as early as on 01.02.2011 and on the same day, the demand draft for payment was also returned to the petitioner. After having received the tender documents and money, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same at a subsequent point of time especially when the tender itself was confirmed on 04.02.2011 and the work order itself was given on 14.02.2011, whereas the writ petition was filed only on 15.02.2011 also without even impleading the successful bidder to whom contract has been awarded. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7.For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector/Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, Pudukkottai District. 2.The Project Director, The District Rural Development Agency, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. +1 CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER S.R NO. 13737 W.P.(MD).No.1871 of 2011 11-04-2011 vs PAM 23.05.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/