1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:23.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD).Nos.13152 and 13153 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 R.Ramkumar : Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.13152/2011 R.Senthilkumar : Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.13153/2011 Vs. The Deputy Collector/District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, Trichirappalli. : Respondent in both WPs. PRAYER in both Writ Petitions: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned tender notice issued by the respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.116/2011/R.V.2, dated 08.11.2011 published in Dinamani Newspaper on 09.11.2011 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. For Petitioner : M/s.B.Saravanan in W.P.(MD)No.13152/2011 For Petitioner : M/s.A.Rahul in W.P.(MD)No.13153/2011 For Respondent : Mr.M.Muniasamy Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER *********** These writ petitions have been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned tender notice issued by the respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.116/2011/R.V.2, dated 08.11.2011 published in Dinamani Newspaper on 09.11.2011 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Mr.B.Saravanan and A.Rahul, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Muniasamy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the existing licensee for collection of empty bottles and to sell eatables in the bar attached to TASMAC Shop No.10270, Paruppukara Street, Palakarai, Trichy-8 and Shop No.10205, Kaja Nagar, Mannarpuram, Trichy -20 respectively. Since the licences of the said bars were expired on 30.09.2011, the respondent issued a tender notice on 23.08.2011 through Dinamalar Newspaper on 24.08.2011 inviting tenders from the intending participants. Though the petitioners were interested in participating in the tender process, they could not participate in the tender process in view of the subsequent cancellation of the tender notice on the intervention of the local body election. Subsequently, a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 fresh tender notice was issued on 08.11.2011. The grievance of the petitioners is that this Court by order dated 25.08.2011 in W.P.(MD) No.9510 of 2011, has directed the respondent to incorporate one important condition that every application filed before the respondent to get licence in respect of the bars, should be accompanied by "No Objection Certificate" from the owner of the building. Though the said order passed by this Court has been accepted by the respondent in Pudukkottai District, the similar condition has not been incorporated in the tender notice issued in Trichy District. Therefore, according to the petitioners, after this Court has upheld the validity of the production of consent letter as an eligibility condition to participate in the tender process for awarding of licence to collect empty bottles and to sell eatables in the TASMAC bars, the present impugned tender notice issued by the respondent on 08.11.2011 published in Dinamani Newspaper on 09.11.2011 without including a condition that every application shall be accompanied by No Objection Certificate from the owner of the building attached with bar is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 4. A detailed counter has been filed by the respondent. In reply to the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondent on 22.11.2011 submitted that if the said condition is incorporated in the tender notice only one person, who got No Objection Certificate from the owner of the building alone, will participate in the tender process, as a result, there will not be more competition in the public auction which will result in loss of revenue. This contention has already been considered by this Court in its earlier order mentioned above. Therefore, this Court is bound by the earlier order passed in W.P.(MD) No.9510 of 2011, on 25.08.2011. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to allow both the writ petitions by directing the respondent to accept only those applications which were submitted along with "No Objection Certificate" from the owner of the building. It is needless to mention that the applications which are not accompanied with "No Objection Certificate" from the owner are liable to be rejected and that should not be taken into account. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. srm Sd/- Assistant Registrar[CO] /True copy/ TO Sub Assistant Registrar THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MANAGER, TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION, TRICHIRAPPALLI. +2CC TO MR.B.SARAVANAN, ADVOCATE SR.NO.41136 & 41382. +1CC TO MR.A.RAHUL, ADVOCATE SR.NO.41135. +1CC TO MR.M.MUNIASAMY, ADVOCATE SR.NO.41219. Order made in 2P/6C W.P.(MD).Nos.13152 and 13153 of 2011 RPB : 24.11.2011 DATED:23.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/