1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.1304 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011 PRA.Veeramani ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Additional Director General of Police, CMDA Tower II, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai -8. 2.The Superintendent, Borstal School, Pudukkottai. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 05.04.2011, made in W.P. (MD)No.7238 of 2008. Prayer WP(MD)No.7238 of 2008 : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order No.11664/IC2/2008 dated 28.07.2008 passed by the first respondent, read with the impugned order No.PO1/9576/2007 dated 30.07.2008 passed by the second respondent and quash the same. For Appellant : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran, Special Government Pleader JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J) The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order of the writ Court, dated 05.04.2011, made in W.P.(MD).No.7238 of 2008, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, seeking for the relief of quashing the impugned orders dated 28.07.2008 and 30.07.2008. 2.Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3.By mutual consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the writ Court has failed to note that in the terms of contract itself, it is specifically mentioned about the probable quantity and the appellant has fulfilled such term by supplying the quantity exceeding the probable quantity. The learned counsel would further point out that the probable quantity was fixed only as 23,000 kgs and the appellant has supplied 30,000 kgs and as such, there is no question of violation of any terms and conditions of the contract entered between the appellant and the respondents. The learned counsel would further submit that the said fact was overlooked by the writ Court and as such, the order of the writ Court is liable to be set aside and the impugned order passed by the respondents are liable to be quashed. 5.Per contra, Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the period of contract entered between the appellant and the respondents was from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 and the appellant has violated the contract conditions, as he has not supplied the articles upto the period of contract viz., upto 31.03.2009. It is contended that he has supplied the articles only upto 31.07.2008 and thereafter, he has failed to supply the articles. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that as per the contract conditions Nos.26 & 43, the respondents rightly forfeited the security deposit amount and also ordered for recovery of earnest money deposit made by the appellant. 6.We have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record, including the impugned orders passed by the respondents. 7.At the outset, it is to be stated that the appellant is the successful bidder for the supply of dietary articles to the respondents, particularly for the Borstal School, Pudukkottai for the year 2008-2009 and the period of contract was from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the undisputed fact remains that the appellant has stopped the supply of dietary articles, even before the expiry of the contract period, as early as on 31.07.2008 itself and on the other hand, the contract period was from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. The appellant has sent a communication, dated 19.07.2008, addressed to the first respondent stating that he has supplied articles, exceeding the probable quantity and the prices of the articles are increased and as such, he has completed the contract and stopped the contract on 31.07.2008 itself. However, it is relevant to note that the writ Court has pointed out the following terms and conditions of the contract as hereunder: "26.If the contractor fails to supply the required articles after accepting his rates, the Earnest Money Deposit made by him will be recovered as per the tender condition and action will also be taken for not to participate in the contract for the next five years as black listing his name." "43.If the contractor is not willing to follow the tender conditions his security deposit money will be forfeited to Government. Due to his failure to supply articles to which the contract is settled the same will be purchased locally and the loss incurred if any by the Government will be recovered from the Contractor by taking appropriate action." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.Reading of the above said conditions of the contract make it crystal clear that in the event of non supply of dietary articles upto the period of contract, the earnest money deposit made by the contractor viz., the appellant is liable to be recovered and the security deposit amount is also liable to be forfeited. The appellant cannot contend that he has accepted to supply only probable quantity, as the contract period agreed and accepted by the appellant was from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. Therefore, the probable quantum is nothing to do with the contractual period and there is absolutely no justification to stop the supply by stating that he has supplied the articles exceeding the probable quantity and the prices of the articles have been increased. All these factors have been taken note of by the writ Court and the writ Court has assigned valid reasons. The perusal of the impugned order, dated 30.07.2008, also makes it abundantly clear that the conditions of the contract viz., the condition Nos.31 and 40 have been violated by the appellant. It is pertinent to note that as per the contract condition Nos.31 & 40, the appellant was accepted to supply not only probable quantity but also exceeding the probable quantity and he has to complete the period of contract. Therefore, there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 9.In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not made out any ground warranting interference in the order of the writ Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Additional Director General of Police, CMDA Tower II, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai -8. 2.The Superintendent, Borstal School, Pudukkottai. +1CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR : 42272 Gcg SR : 19.12.2011 : 3p/4c Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1304 of 2011 Dated:30.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/