1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.9510 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 & 2 of 2011 S.Shahul Hamead ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Managing Director, (TASMAC) Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Chennai. 2. The Senior Regional Manager,(TASMAC) Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Trichy. 3. The District Manager,(TASMAC) Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Pudukottai,Pudukottai District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the tender notification passed by the 3rd respondent in bt.Miz vz;.47 br.k.bjh m/2011, dated 08.08.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondents : Mr.M.Muniasamy Standing Counsel ORDER An intending bidder for grant of license to a bar attached to TASMAC shop, in Pudukottai District, has challenged the Notification dated 8/8/2011 of the District Manager, TASMAC, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Pudukottai, contending interalia that, the Notification is contrary to Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, in not notifying, the location of the individual bars in the impugned Notification and that therefore, the same is in contravention of Rule 10 of the above said Rules. In support of his contention, he has also relied on a judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.9309 to 9325 of 2011 dated 18/8/2011. 2. Attention was also drawn to the contents of the Notification dated 8/8/2011 and the particulars sought for in the tender schedule. According to Mr.Subash Babu, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that in the absence of any details, regarding the location of the shops in Pudukottai District, with a specific condition that the aspirants to bar licence should enclose necessary "No Objection Certificates" from the land owners, the tender Notification would only open floodgates, in that any bidder, can simply submit an application for bar licence, without producing a "No Objection Certificate" that there is always a possibility of arbitrariness, in choosing the bid. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. As location of each shops, within Pudukottai District has not been notified, he has prayed to set aside the tender notice dated 9/8/2011 and to reissue the same. 4.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5.At the out set, from the materials on record it could be deduced that earlier, when tender schedule was not issued to the writ petitioner, he preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.9319 of 2011, contending inter alia that though, he has submitted necessary application along with the Demand Draft for value of Rs.525/-, drawn in favour of the District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., for reasons best known, the District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Pudukoittai, has refused to issue the Tender Schedule, as per Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, Transparency in Tender Rules, which states that the authority should make the tender document available on receipt of the cost of the said document. The writ petition was taken up along with other writ petitions and disposed of by a common order on 18.08.2011, permitting the petitioners therein, to make a request in writing to the District Manager, TASMAC, Pudukottai, along with the Demand Draft, in his favour, within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and if such request was made, the said authority was directed to issue necessary, tender schedule to the petitioners therein, so as to enable them, to participate in the tender. 6.On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the said authority did not oblige immediately, but, on persuasion, issued the Tender Schedule, to the writ petitioner. 7.Perusal of the impugned notification, enclosed at page No.1, in the typed set of papers shows that in respect of bars attached to IMFL shops in Pudukottai District, applications were invited from the bidders. For the shops located within the Corporation and its limits, the intending bidders, should deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/-, by way of Demand Draft, in favour of the District Manager, TASMAC, Pudukottai and in respect of other areas, they have to deposit a sum of Rs.5000/-. The last date for submission of tender schedule, for grant of licence to a bar attached to IMFL shop, located within Pudukottai District is 29.08.2011 at 3.00 p.m., and at 3.30 p.m., the Tender Schedule forms, submitted by the intending bidders have to be opened, on the same day. 8.No doubt, the tender Notification, dated 09.08.2011, does not contain the details of location of each and every shop, within the jurisdiction of Pudukottai District. But the facts remains that the petitioner cannot be said that he is not aware of the area, in which, IMFL shop No.6515 is located. As stated supra, knowing fully well that where the Shop No.6515, is located within Pudukottai District, the petitioner has already approached this Court and obtained an order against the District Manager, TASMAC, Pudukottai. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that because of non-mentioning of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 exact location of the area of IMFL shops within Pudukottai District, the petitioner has been prejudiced and that therefore, he is aggrieved. 9.It is well known that to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily, he must be an aggrieved person and that he must substantiate, as to how his legal, fundamental or statutory rights are infringed. Looking at from the above said angle, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner had already made an application for issuance of the tender schedule, for IMFL shop No.6515, it cannot be said that there is an infringement of any right, as stated supra. 10.Yet another aspect to be considered is that, as per rule 2(d) the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, Transparency in Tender Rule, a “Bar” means, a place located within the shop or adjoining the shop, used for consumption of liquor. As per rule 4, the licence is granted for retail vending of liquor in the shop. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the intending bidders, that whenever they submit the tender schedule, quoting the price for running a bar attached to an IMFL shop, they have to produce a “No Objection Certificate” from the respective land owners. If, any particular place, with address, with door number, street name etc., is notified, as the location of the IMFL shop, then the intending biders, will not be in a position even to submit the tender schedules, as they would be constrained to approach that particular land owner, in whose property, the IMFL shop has been directed to be located. That would run contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender schedule which states that a tenderer, who intends to participate, has to submit a 'No Objection Certificate” from the respective land owner. In a given case, where he himself owns or possess the property in which, IMFL shop and a bar could be located, subject to the distant rule contained in the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, Transparency in Tender Rule, he can submit the tender schedule by locating or specifying a particular Door No or a place. 11.Another difficulty likely to arise is that, if the shop is notified with door number, street name, area etc., and if the land owner or the person, in whose favour “No objection Certificate” is given, and if the bid offered by him is comparatively lower than the others, he cannot be granted the licence, as per the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, Transparency in Tender Rules. Therefore, as per procedure for granting licence to IMFL bars, within the District, i.e., the area, in which, an IMFL shop has to be located can be mentioned in the tender notice and when the tenderers submit theit individual tender schedule, along with “No Objection Certificates” from the respective landlords, or when they themselves are landlords, and submit the tender schedule, the highest bidder can be selected, if he has enclosed a “No Objection Certificate” from the landlord in the area, where he wanted to locate the IMFL shop. Such a procedure, would enable all the bidders to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to take part in the tender. Though the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the location of each and every shops, in Pudukottai District, had not been notified in the tender advertisement, dated 09.08.2011, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 cannot be said to be an aggrieved person, for the reason, he has already submitted, an application for issuance of tender schedule, for grant of licence to a bar attached to an IMFL Shop No.6515. When the petitioner knowing fully well, about the location of the bar, attached to Shop No.6515, has already submitted an application, he has acquiesced, to the terms of the advertisement and it is not open to him to assail the correctness of the same. 12.For the above said reasons, this Court is not inclined to issue a Writ of Certiorari. Writ of Certiorari to quash the tender Notification, dated 08.08.2011, cannot be granted for the reasons stated above. However, it is made clear that, the respondents shall consider only those applications, supported with “No Objection Certificate” from the respective land owners, for location of a bar, attached to the IMFL shops in Pudukottai District. 13.In the result, the writ petition, is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Managing Director,(TASMAC) Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Chennai. 2. The Senior Regional Manager,(TASMAC) Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Trichy. 3. The District Manager,(TASMAC) Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Pudukottai,Pudukottai District. +1cc to Mr.M.Subash Babu, Advocate SR.No.28189 W.P.(MD).No.9510 of 2011 25.08.2011 MPK PA/26.08.2011/4P/5C(IT) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/