Cont.P.No.389 of 2009 M.Vallalar ... second respondent in Cont.P.No.387 of 2009 and Cont.P.No.389 of 2009 R.Venkatraman ... third respondent in Cont.P.No.387 of 2009 and Cont.P.No.389 of 2009 Christudoss ... fourth respondent in Cont.P.No.387 of 2009 and Cont.P.No.389 of 2009 Apoorva Varma ... fourth respondent in Cont.P.No.387 of 2009 and Cont.P.No.389 of 2009 General Manager Dindigul Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., No.9, East Govindapuram Dindigul 624 001 ... first respondent in W.P.(MD) No.8829 of 2009 Special Officer/District Collector Dindigul Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., No.9, East Govindapuram Dindigul 624 001 ... second respondent in W.P.(MD) No.8829 of 2009 The Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development Madhavaram Milk Colony Madhavaram, Chennai-600 051 ... third respondent in W.P.(MD) No.8829 of 2009 The Secretary to Government Animal Husbandry Department Fort St. George Chennai-600 009 ... fourth respondent in W.P.(MD) No.8829 of 2009 Contempt Petition No.387 of 2009 Contempt Petition filed under Section 10 & 12 of the contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for the contempt of Court for wilfully disobeying the order passed by this Court, dated 24.6.2009 made in W.P.Nos.103 of 2009.
Contempt Petition No.389 of 2009 Contempt Petition filed under
Section 10 &
12 of the contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for the contempt of Court for wilfully disobeying the order passed by this Court, dated 24.6.2009 made in W.P.No.1846 of 2009.
W.P.(MD) No.8829 of 2009 This Writ Petition has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent relating to rejection order made in Esdt. No.3775/TPT/08, dated 3.8.2009 quash the same and to direct the second respondent to follow TT Act and Rules.
Contempt Petition Nos.387 of 2009 and Contempt Petition Nos.389 of 2009 !For Petitioner ...Mr.A.K.Baskarapandiyan ^For Respondents ...Mr.P.Wilson, Additional Advocate General for Mr.S.Ravichandran for R1 Mr.R.Janakiramulu for R2 and R4 W.P.(MD) No.8829 of 2009.
For Petitioner ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandiyan For Respondents ... Mr.P.Wilson, Additional Advocate General for Mr.S.Ravichandran for R1 Mr.K.Balasubramaniam Additional Government Pleader for R2 and R3 :COMMON ORDER Both the contempt petitions, in contempt petition No.387 of 2009 and contempt petition No.389 of 2009, have arisen in respect of the common order passed by this Court, on 24.6.2009, in W.P.(MD) Nos.103 and 1846 of 2009.
2. These contempt petitions have been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for comitting the contempt of Court, by wilfully disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 24.6.2009, in W.P.(MD) Nos.103 and 1846 of 2009.
3. The writ petition No.103 of 2009, had been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents therein to open the commercial bid, made in pursuance of the notification issued by the first respondent for the purpose of transportation of milk, for the year 2009-2010.
4. The writ petition, in W.P.No.1846 of 2009, has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent therein, relating to the re-tender notification in Na.Ka.No.3775/P-1/2008, dated 4.2.2009, and to quash the same and to further direct the second respondent to open the commercial bid for the tender notification, issued in the newspaper, `Dina Thanthi', dated 20.11.2008.
5. It has been stated that the petitioners in the writ petitions have been doing the business of providing milk tankers for hire, to the respondents, to enable them to procure, transport and supply milk to various places in Dindigul District, by the respondents, from time to time. While so, the second respondent had invited tenders in the tamil dailies, for hiring of milk tankers, for the year 2009-2010, for the Dindigul Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited. As per the said notification, the last date for submission of the tender applications was fixed, on 11.12.2008. The date fixed for the opening of the technical bid was 12.12.2008 and the date for opening of the commercial bid was fixed as 15.12.2008.
6. It has been further stated that six agencies, including the petitioner, had submitted their tender applications, within the stipulated time. The technical bid was opened, on 12.12.2008, by the tender committee. The tender committee had declared the technical bid of three tenderers, namely, Deepika Transport, South India Road Milk Transports and Jareen Transport, as the qualified bids. The other three tender applications had been rejected. However, the tender committee did not open the commercial bid, as scheduled. Therefore, the petitioner had sent several representations requesting the tender committee to follow the terms and conditions of the tender and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and the Rules framed thereunder. However, without complying with the requests made by the petitioner, the second respondent had called for re-tender, without any valid reason to justify the same. The re-tender notification had been published in the `Dina newspaper', Daily Thanthi, and in the concerned website. The second respondent had stated that the re-tender had been called for, based on the recommendations of the tender committee.
7. It had been stated that the re-tender was being held, since there were certain irregularities committed during the earlier tender and therefore, the commercial bid, based on the earlier tender notification had not been opened. In such circumstances, the writ petition, in W.P.(MD) No.103 of 2009, had been filed, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to open the commercial bid made for the year, 2009-2010.
8. The writ petition, in W.P.No.1846 of 2009, had been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the re-tender notification, dated 4.2.2009, issued by the second respondent, on 20.11.2008, and to direct the second respondent to open the commercial bid, which had been based on the earlier notification of the second respondent, dated 20.11.2008.
9. This Court, by its common order, dated 24.6.2009, had held that it is not open to the respondents to call for re-tender, without cancelling the commercial bid. It had also been held that in Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, a bar has been imposed not to alter or make amendments in the terms and conditions of the tender, after it is opened. Once the technical bid has been opened by the respondents, re-tender for the commercial bid cannot be called for, without cancelling the same. Since it had not been shown by the respondents that they had followed the procedures prescribed, under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, the writ petitions had been allowed, directing the respondents to proceed on the basis of the terms and conditions mentioned in the original tender notification, dated 20.11.2008.
10. Deepika Transports, the petitioner, in W.P.No.103 of 2009, had also filed another writ petition before this Court, in W.P.(MD) No.8829 of 2009, challenging the rejection order passed by the second respondent, on 3.8.2009, rejecting the commercial bid made for the year, 2009-2010, and to direct the second respondent to follow the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and the Rules framed thereunder, in respect of the tender notification, dated 20.11.2008.
11. At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petitions, in contempt petition No.387 of 2009 and contempt petition No.389 of 2009 and W.P.(MD) No.8829 of 2009, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner had filed an appeal, on 13.9.2009, to the fourth respondent, in W.P.(MD) No.8829 of 2009, namely, the Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry Department, Chennai, under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and it has not been disposed of, till date.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the fourth respondent, in W.P.(MD)No.8829 of 2009, is directed to dispose of the appeal, dated 13.9.2009, pending on his file, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.
13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the fourth respondent, namely, the Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry Department, Chennai, is directed to dispose of the appeal, dated 13.9.2009, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. With the above directions, the contempt petitions in contempt petition No.387 of 2009 and contempt petition No.389 of 2009 and W.P.(MD) No.8829 of 2009 are closed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
lan To:
1. General Manager Dindigul Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., No.9, East Govindapuram,Dindigul 624 001
2. Special Officer/District Collector Dindigul Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., No.9, East Govindapuram Dindigul 624 001
3. The Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development Madhavaram Milk Colony Madhavaram, Chennai-600 051
4. The Secretary to Government Animal Husbandry Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.