TTBL TEA AND TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED FORMERLY CALLED TAMIL NADU TEA BROKERS LIMITED TTBL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the third respondent dated 28.11.2001, appointing respondents 4 to 6 as Tea Brokers in respect of tea factories of TANTEA, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions to quash the said order on various grounds.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in W.P. No.24289 of 2001 is briefly stated hereunder: According to them, their company was established in 1984 by orders of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.338, dated 4.4.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.1107, dated 23.10.1987. THE sole objective in formation of the petitioner company was to provide the second respondent, public undertaking with specialized tea broking services. Further, the petitioner was assured by the first respondent that fair amounts of teas will be given to the petitioner for the purpose of broking. THE petitioner company therefore was specially formed with technical experts, skilled personnel and consultants only to provide the second respondent with necessary expertise and effective service in broking its teas. THE first respondent appointed the petitioner as brokers for the second respondent as the latter is totally controlled by the first respondent. THE second respondent has drawn up a list of brokers to encourage competition and ensure transparency in the transactions. This list of brokers including the petitioner has been the same for the last 12 years but for minor changes. However,the impugned order dated 28.11.2001, the third respondent in total contravention to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act of 1998, has allotted all the Teas produced by the second respondent to respondents 4-6, who lack the necessary experience and expertise in broking. THE third respondent has passed the impugned order in total contravention of the legal procedures only under pressure and due to severe and coercive tactics applied by certain political elements breeding nepotism and favoritism, at the expense of public interests. THE third respondent has no power or authority to pass such an order, as the petitioner has been appointed by the first respondent.

(3.) ANOTHER company by name Forbes Ewart and Figgis Private Limited has filed a similar writ petition, namely, W.P.No.24290 of 2001 and also raised similar averments.