In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 28.03.2002 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM Writ Petition No.15222 OF 2001 AND W.P.M.P.NO.22580 of 2001 M/s. Mather and Platt (India) Ltd., Fluid Engineering Group No.13, Flowers Road Chennai 600084 rep. By its Deputy General Manager. .. Petitioner vs. 1.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. M.M.Complex, Neyveli, rep. By its Managing Director. 2.The General Manager (Contracts & Purchase) Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., M.M. Complex, Neyveli. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of mandamus as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr. Krishna Srinivas for M/s. Ramasubramaniam Assts. For respondents : Mr. N.A.K. Sarma : ORDER The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider their tender dated 06.09.2000, on merits. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of industrial pumps. So far the petitioner has successfully tendered for various tenders issued for Government contracts. During 1999, the respondents had called for tenders with regard to supply and installation of fire protection system for the NLC Thermal 1 expansion (01 unit) and the petitioner had sent their quotation for the same. However, due to change in the market condition and in view of the non-viability of the project, the petitioner vide letter dated 18.09.2000, had withdrawn the tender and had recalled its quotation. Thereafter, the respondents called for tenders for the supply of 24 Nos. Horizontal Fix Casing Pumps in their tender dated 19.07.2000. The petitioner had given their quotation for supply of these pumps and had stated that they also furnished bank guarantee in terms of the tender conditions. The tender was submitted to the respondents under cover of the petitioner's letter dated 06.09.2000, wherein the petitioner had offered the range of pumps for 35 00 GPM at 165 meters head and 400 GPM at 150 meters head against the said tender. The tender was in two parts, comprising of the technical qualifications and the price factors. Only if a person qualifies for the technical qualification, he would be called for the price negotiation. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation seeking for details regarding price bid opening so as to enable it to attend the same. The petitioner requested the respondents for a meeting, which was also declined. The petitioner had sent several reminders, for which there has been no response from the respondents. Reliably now the petitioner was informed that the respondents have opened the price bids on 18.08.2001. The petitioner also reliably understood that the respondents failed to consider the offer of petitioner's Company for extraneous reason rather than which is lawfully required. They intended to give the purchase order to a third party, hence the present writ petition. 4. On the side of the respondents, the second respondent - General Manager / Material Management, N.L.C. has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made in the affidavit. It is stated that the Corporation is one of the largest Public Sector Enterprise and its main activities are mining of lignite from its two open cast mines and generate electricity through its two Thermal Power Stations. To meet the increased captive demand of lignite of the Corporation in respect of its Thermal Power Stations, a new mine called as Mine-1A, is in process of establishment. Accordingly, a series of specialised mining equipments are being procured. The procurement of 24 Nos. Horizontal Split Centrifugal Pumps with Motor formed part of the overall Mine-1A Project. For this work, a notice inviting tenders, (NIT) was issued on 19.07.2000. The estimated value of the contract was about Rs.2.50 crores. The bid consisted of 3 parts, namely, Part-I : Bid guarantee and pre-qualification requirement. Part-II : Techno-Commercial offer Part-III : Price bid. In pursuance of the NIT, 8 parties obtained tender documents from the Corporation and out of them, 7 parties submitted their offers. Parts I and II of the tender were opened on 08.09.2000. The petitioner herein is one of the parties who purchased the tender documents and submitted its offer. The Corporation constituted a Tender Committee ( TC) for scrutiny of the bids and making recommendations for finalising the tender. Out of the 7 parties, the Tender Committee recommended three parties for considering their Part II Techno Commercial offer. The Tender Committee recommended valid reasons for passing over the other four bidders. The recommendati ons of the Tender Committee were duly approved by the Director (Mines), Director (Finance) and finally by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation. Following this, the said 3 parties alone were called for Part II Techno Commercial discussions. The petitioner was not called for the Techno Commercial discussions. After conclusion of the Techno Commercial discussions, after due notice, the Price Covers of these 3 parties, namely, M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., M/s. Beacon Weir Limited and M/s. WPIL Limited were opened on 18.08.2001. On evaluation, the Tender Committee on 28.08.2001 recommended the order on the L-1 Bidder, viz., M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., After due approvals at the highest level of the Corporation, the LOI has been issued to M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., in their reference dated 03.11.2001. The Corporation has also issued purchase orders in favour of M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., on the same date for all the 24 pumps. In view of their past conduct in withdrawal of their offer after 4 « months after submission of the price cover, the petitioner Company has no consideration for sanctity of contract. As a result, the Corporation had to suffer heavy monetary loss and the earlier project got delayed. Therefore, the decision in the present case not to consider the bid of the petitioner for the pumps contract is justified and has been done in the interest of the Corporation. 5. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as respondents. 6. The only point for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as claimed for? 7. In view of the information furnished by the respondents in their counter affidavit, that the tender of the petitioner was not accepted for the reasons stated therein, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed without further discussion. I am inclined to consider the case of both parties and dispose of the writ petition on merits. There is no dispute that in respect of tender relating to procurement of 24 numbers Horizontal Split Centrifugal Pumps with Motor formed part of the overall Mine-1A Project, the petitioner herein submitted its offer. It is seen from the counter affidavit of the respondents that, Neyveli Lignite Corporation constituted a Tender Committee consisting of General Manager / MM, General Manager (GWC) Mines and Deputy General manager (Finance) / Mines for scrutiny of the bids and making recommendations for finalising the tender. They scrutinised the offers of the 7 parties including the petitioner, which submitted its offers with respect to Part I, the bid guarantee and pre-qualifications requirement. It is further seen that, out of the 7 parties, the Tender Committee recommended the following three parties for considering the Part II Techno-Commercial offer. " (i) M/s. Mirloskar Brothers (ii) M/s. Beacon Weir Limited and (ii)M/s. WPIL Limited. " It is further seen that the Committee has not considered the other 4 bidders including the writ petitioner. 8. In this regard, the respondent - deponent of the affidavit has explained that in the previous occasion i.e., on 09.06.1999, the Corporation had issued a tender for Fire Protection System for Thermal Station-I, in which the petitioner Company participated. The value of the contract was about 6.6 crores and the petitioner Company became a L-1 bidder and the L-2 was higher by about Rs.2 crores. After knowing this difference, the petitioner Company suddenly withdrew its offer after three weeks after opening of the price cover for no valid reason. It is the grievance of the respondent that in view of such withdrawal 4 « months after submission of price cover and after coming to know that the price bid of L-1 is far less, the petitioner Company has no consideration for sanctity of contract. It is also stated that as a result, the Corporation had to suffer heavy monetary loss and the project got delayed. Keeping in mind the immediate past conduct of the petitioner, the Tender Committee which is competent to decide, recommended to pass over petitioner's offer at the initial stage itself. In such a situation, as rightly argued, the petitioner has no right to maintain the present writ petition alleging that the acts of the respondents to be discriminatory or irrational. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on a case of M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1975 (1) S.C.C. 70, contended that the petitioner was not given any prior intimation or notice before black listing it. First of all, the petitioner was not at all black listed as claimed by it. In view of their past conduct relating to tender for fire protection system for Thermal Station - I expansion, the Tender Committee consisting of qualified persons passed over the offer of the petitioner. The decision referred to by the petitioner relates to the case of black listing, is not helpful to the petitioner's case. 10. By relying on a case of Mahabir Auto Stores vs. Indian Oil Corporation reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1031, learned counsel for the petitioner, further contended that in the absence of notice or intimation, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained and this Court can set right their arbitrary action. For the reasons stated above and in the light of the decision of the Expert Committee, namely, Tender Committee for scrutiny of bids, I am of the view that the said decision is also not helpful to the petitioner's case. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raunaq International Ltd., vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., reported in A.I.R. 1999 S. C. 393 contended that, in the light of the past conduct of the petitioner and the decision was taken by the Tender Committee consisting of experts on the subject, interference by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited. In this regard, it is relevant to note the following conclusion of their Lordships. " 16. It is also necessary to remember that price may not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. Often when an evaluation committee of experts is appointed to evaluate offers, the expert committee's special knowledge plays a decisive role in deciding which is the best offer. Price offered is only one of the criteria. The past record of the tenderers, the quality of the goods or services which are offered, assessing such quality on the basis of the past performance of the tenderer, its market reputation and so on, all play an important role in deciding to whom the contract should be awarded. At times, a higher price for a much better quality of work, can be legitimately paid in order to secure proper performance of the contract and good quality of work - which is as much in public interest as a low price. The Court should not substitute its own decision for the decision of an expert evaluation committee. " They also held that, " 19. A somewhat different approach may be required in the cases of award of a contract by the Government for the purchase of items for its use. Judicial review would be permissible only on the established grounds for such review including mala fides, arbitrariness or unreasonableness of the Wednesbury variety. ..... " 12. Therefore, it is clear from the above decision that, in the absence of mala fide, arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the selection and in view of the fact that the claim of the petitioner was considered by the Tender Committee consisting of experts in that field, and in the absence of any other material, I do not find any valid reason to issue direction as claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP., is also dismissed. Index:Yes/I kh 28.03.2002 P. Sathasivam,J., Order in W.P.No.15222 of 2001 Dated:28.03.2002 ? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRS % DATED:13.02.2002 * CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ + W.P.NOS.15281 of 1997 and 18872 OF 1997 , 138,230, 4364,4370 AND 11383 OF 1998. AND W.M.P.NOS.24317 AND 29753 OF 1997, 163, 284, 4833, 6655, 11370, 17370 AND 28518 OF 1998. W.P.No.15281 of 1997 # Dr.V.Ganesan,M.D. ... Petitioner Vs. $ 1.The Collector of Nilgiris, Nilgiris District. 2.The District Adi Dravida Welfare Officer, Udhagamandalam. 3.Udhagamandalam. The Land Acquisition Officer (ADW) Udhagamandalam. ... Respondents. W.P.No.18872 of 1997 1.Subbanna Gounder. 2.Muthusamy Gounder 3.Samiappa Gounder. ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Collector, Erode District, Erode. 2.The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Adi Dravidar Welfare, Erode. .. Respondents W.P.NO.138 OF 1998 V.Ramadas Reddy, Machambattu Village, Kothur P.O., Via.Umarabath, Vellore District. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore.9. 2.The Special Tahsildar(Adi- Dravidar Welfare) Gudiyatham, Vellore District. ... Respondents. W.P.NO.230 OF 1998 1.Ajjappa 2.Mallappa ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Collector of Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. 2.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Krishnagiri. ... Respondents. W.P.NO.4364 OF 1998 Raj. H.Easwaran, rep.by Power Agent Sri.Hari Easwaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli. 2.The Special Tahsildar(ADW), Land Acquisition, Cheranmahadevi. ... Respondents W.P.NO.4370 OF 1998: Smt.Sowmya, rep.by Power Agent Sri. Hari Easwaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli 2.The Special Tahsildar(ADW), Land Acquisition, Cheranmahadevi. ... Respondents W.P.NO.11383 OF 1998: P.C.Kuppusamy Chettiar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Secretary to Government, Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri-636 706. 3.The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Adi dravidar Welfare, Dharmapuri-636 706. ... Respondents Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of Certiorari as stated therein. ! For petitioner in W.P.No.15281/97 : Mr.G.Baskaran For petitioner in W.P.No.18872/97 : Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Rajendran For petitioner in W.P.No.138/98 : Mr.R.G.Narendhiran For petitioner in W.P.No.230/98 : Mr.M.V.Krishnan For petitioners in W.Ps.4364 & 4370/98 : Mr.V.Ramesh For petitioner in W.P.No.11383 of 1998 : Mr.Sivakumar ^ For respondents in all the matters : Mr.M.Mahalingam, G.A. : COMMON ORDER All the above writ petitions have been filed by different parties against the respective District Collectors and the Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare concerned with the State praying to issue writs of certiorari calling for the Notifications effected in each of the above cases under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978, and to quash the same. 2. Though the facts pertaining to the lands sought to be acquired concerning each and every writ petition are located in different districts, varying from case to case in extent, the question raised in all the above writ petitions is one and the same to the effect that `in order to cause publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (Act 31/1978) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), whether issuance of show-cause notice under Section 4(2) of the Act is mandatory and the District Collector while issuing the said show-cause notice to the owners or other persons interested, is further required to follow the conditions stipulated under Section 4(3) of the Act.' 3. It is Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules 1979 (hereinafter called as 'Rules') which prescribes the procedure for acquiring the lands whereunder the show cause notice is to be issued in Form I and the notice to be published in District Gazette in Form II. 4. In order to analyse the implications and impact of this provisions of law, it is relevant to extract section 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) of the Act and Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules 1979. "4. Power to acquire land:- (1)Where the District Collector is satisfied that for the purpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme, it is necessary to acquire any land, he may acquire the land by publishing in the District Gazette a notice to the effect that he has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this section. (2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the District Collector in his behalf, shall call upon the owner or any other person, who, in the opinion of the District Collector or the officer so authorised may be interested in such land, to show cause why it should not be acquired. 3:(a): The District Collector may, where he has himself called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section (2), pass such orders as he may deem fit on the cause so shown; (b) Where any officer authorised by the District Collector has called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section(2), the officer so authorised shall make a report to the District Collector containing his recommendations on the cause so shown for the decision of the District Collector. After considering such report the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deem fit." "Rule 3. Procedure for Acquiring Land:- (i): The District Collector or the Officer authorised by him in this behalf shall serve a show cause notice in Form I under sub-section (2) of Section 4 individually on the owner or on all persons interested in the land to be acquired. If the owner or any other person interested in the land resides elsewhere than where the land is situated, the show cause notice shall be sent by registered post ( Acknowledgment Due) to the last known address of the owner or any other person interested. (ii): The District Collector, if, after passing such orders as required by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 is satisfied that it is necessary to acquire the land, notice in Form II to that effect shall be published in the District Gazette." 5. During arguments, Mr.R.Gandhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.18872/1997 and the other learned counsel appearing on behalf of the other petitioners would unequivocally submit that in the matter of acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Schemes under Act 31 of 1978 strict compliance of the sub-Section (2) and (3) of Section 4 of the Act is inevitable and must, if publication under Section 4(1) is to be effected in the Gazette, thereby deciding to acquire the particular land. They would also cite a decision in this regard by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1997 TLNJ 311 (TMT.PUSPA BAI BOINSINGH Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KATTABOMMAN DISTRICT AND ANOTHER) wherein it is held: "Considering the fact that the appellant herein was not given an opportunity before passing the order by the Collector, we set aside the order dt.17.2.97 passed by the first respondent, and direct the District Collector, first respondent herein, to pass an order in the above matter after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant herein/petitioner in the writ petition. Accordingly the order passed in the writ petition is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed." 6. On the other hand, on the part of the learned Government Advocate on the writ side he would point out that in writ petition 138 of 19 98 the above procedures laid down under Section 4(3)(b) has been followed and would cause production of the original records, but the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that there is nothing to show that the District Collector based on the report of the Tahsildar considered the recommendations of the Tahsildar with opportunity to the party to be heard which is meant by the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1997 TLNJ 311 cited supra. 7. In Consideration of the pleadings by parties, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, the crucial question that is raised uppermost for consideration of this Court is: `whether in the scheme of Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare as per Act 31 of 1978, in adherence of Section 4(3 )(b), the District Collector authorises any officer and the said officer having called upon the owner or the interested person in the land sought to be acquired to show cause under Section 4(2) submits a report to the District Collector containing his recommendations for the decision of the District Collector, Whether the District Collector while passing such orders on such report is required to give an opportunity of being heard to the owner or interested person in the land sought to be acquired. 8. Section 4(3) (b) only says that '...after considering such report the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deem fit.' The above terms employed in the Section are crucial since the expectation of law is that the Collector should consider such report and pass orders as he may deem fit. The point is whether the term ` considering the report' by the District Collector prior to passing his orders is mere consideration of the materials contained in the report of the officer who was delegated or authorised with the authority of the District Collector to comply with Section 4(2) requirements or whether such `consideration' by the District Collector includes opportunity to the owner or interested person to be heard prior to passing the orders? 9. The Division Bench judgment of this Court cited supra does not discuss the questions raised before it in the context of the provisions of law. But since the counsel appearing for the appellant represented that without giving an opportunity to establish her case, the Collector passed the Award on the report filed by the Tahsildar, the Division Bench remarking that no such opportunity was given to the appellant by the Collector to the appellant therein before passing the order, had set aside the said order passed by the District Collector further directing the Collector to pass an order after giving an opportunity to the appellant for being heard in the petition. No mention need be necessary that only based on the representation of the counsel for the appellant seeking an opportunity for being heard and not on the `ratio decidendi' the decision has been arrived at by the Division Bench absolutely bereft of any discussion having been held as to what is meant by `consideration' of the report by the District Collector, whether it is mere consideration in application of mind by the Collector or the term `consideration' means and includes opportunity of being heard and thus arriving at the finding coupled with the reasons. 10. On the contrary, on the very same subject, a later judgment passed by a single Judge of this Court delivered in SANNASI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PUDUKKOTTAI reported in (1999)II MLJ 506 would hold that the land owner or person interested is only entitled to notice under Section 4(2) of the Act and if it is complied with either by the District Collector or any officer authorised by him, there is no need to furnish copies of the report of the officer authorised nor for any further enquiry under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act since one and the only opportunity given to the land owner, according to the decision of the learned single Judge, is to issue the show cause notice under Section 4(2) of the Act. 11. There is a subtle distinction made in between Sections 4(3)(a) and 4(3)(b). Under Section 4(3)(a) the Collector himself calls upon the owner or other person interested to show cause under Section 4(2) of the Act as to why the land should not be acquired for the public purpose. Here Section authorises the