This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to allot the tender, for the collection of fee, for maintaining the Integrated Slaughter House, situated in Nethaji Road, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli, in favour of the petitioner, by accepting the highest price, as per the tender conducted, on 23.7.2009.
2. The petitioner is a registered Trust, with registration No.156/2008. The Trust had been created with the main object of doing social service by carrying on charitable activities, including programmes in the fields of health and education. It has been further stated that the respondent had called for tender from Non-Governmental Organisations, for the collection of fee and for maintaining the Integrated Slaughter House at Melapalayam, Tirunelveli, for the year 2009-2010, by way of a notification, dated 1.7.2009. The tender price was fixed at Rs.2 lakhs per year. The petitioner Trust had participated in the tender, along with three other contenders and had offered the tender price of Rs.99,999/- per month, which amounts to Rs.11,99,988/-, for one year. The tender was opened, on 23.7.2009, in the presence of the tenderers and the petitioner had been declared as the highest bidder. However, no order had been issued to the petitioner, even after repeated requests. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondent, on 18.9.2009. While so, an urgent meeting of the respondent Municipal Corporation had been called for, on 24.9.2009, to decide various issues, including the issue relating to the tender called for in respect of the Integrated Slaughter House.
3. It has also been stated that the decision of the respondent Municipal Corporation, to call for a retender, is arbitrary and illegal. The only ground on which the respondent Municipal Corporation seeks to call for re-tender is that in the tender called for by the notification, dated 1.7.2009, only Non- Governmental Organisations had participated and that if a fresh tender is called for, the competition would be higher and it would fetch a higher revenue to the respondent Municipal Corporation. In fact, such an exercise was being attempted by the respondent Municipal Corporation, with a mala fide intention of helping certain persons to benefit from the deal. The petitioner has also stated that a self help group, which had offered the lowest price in the tender, was negotiating with the respondent Municipal Corporation to get a favourable order.
4. It has also been stated that even though the licence period had expired, as early as, on 30.4.2009, the respondent Municipal Council had passed a resolution to continue the existing licensee, till the completion of the new Slaughter house, by paying the monthly fee of Rs.9200/- and the earlier licensee is continuing, till date, even after the petitioner had offered the highest price of Rs.99,999/- per month. Further, the existing licensee had questioned the tender notification before this Court, in W.P.No.6469 of 2009. Even though no interim order had been passed by this Court, restraining the respondent from allotting the tender in favour of the petitioner, the respondent is indirectly supporting the existing licensee causing a monetary loss of nearly Rs.1 lakh per month, to the respondent Corporation.
5. The petitioner has also stated that the policy of the Government is that its tenders shall be given to charitable trusts, social welfare organisations and self help groups and others. Further, the respondent Municipal Corporation had also passed a resolution to give the works to Non-Governmental Organisations. In such circumstances, the calling for fresh tender by the respondent Municipal Corporation, based on the resolution of the Municipal Corporation, is arbitrary, illegal and void.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner is not a registered Non-Governmental Organisation. The proposal placed before the Municipal Corporation to call for re-tender has not yet been accepted, as it is only under the consideration of the Municipal Council. In fact, the tender had been called for, after three Slaughter Houses had been made into one unit. In the tender called for by the notification, dated 1.7.2009, there were only four participants. Further, by way of an office note it has also been proposed to issue the tender for a period of three years.
7. The learned counsel had also stated that the tender, in which the petitioner had participated had not been rejected, till date. It is for the Municipal Council to accept or to reject the tender. An urgent meeting of the counsel had been called for, on 24.9.2009. The meeting had been adjourned to 28.10.2009. Thereafter, it had been further adjourned to be held on a different date. Therefore, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is premature in nature. The learned counsel for the respondent had also submitted that it is not open to the petitioner to question the terms and conditions of the tender, at this stage, after having participated in the process. One of the conditions stipulated in the tender is that the tender can be rejected, at any stage.
8. The learned counsel had further submitted that the agenda placed before the Municipal Council, in respect of the tender in question, is in view of the Government orders and in view of the change in policy of the Government to call for tenders for a period of three years, instead of one year, at a time. The learned counsel for the respondent had relied on the following decisions, with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition.
1. State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Bahadur Singh (AIR 1982 SC 1234)
2. Food Corporation of India Vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (AIR 1993 SC 1601)
3. S.Selvarani V. The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi (2005(1) MLJ 394).
The learned counsel had submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact that no right had accrued to the petitioner, till date.
9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the Municipal Council had already rejected the tender called for by way of the notification, dated 1.7.2009, in which the petitioner had offered the highest price. Further, the petitioner has also not shown that a decision had been made to call for a re-tender. As such, the present writ petition is premature in nature. Further, the writ petitioner cannot claim that certain rights had already accrued to him, since no order has been passed in respect of the tender, in which he had participated. As per the terms and conditions of the tender, it could be rejected, at any stage. The petitioner had participated in the tender process accepting the terms and conditions of the tender. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
csh To The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli.