G GENGAVARAJAN Vs. D MANIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 10.9.2002, the respondent/Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, invited tender for collection of parking fee at Chennai Moffusil Bus Stand, Koyambedu, by advertisements in the Newspapers. The upset price was fixed at Rs. 25 lakhs. The petitioner participated in the tender by complying with all the preliminary requirements and submitted the tender quoting Rs.32,05,000 and the petitioner claims that he was declared as successful bidder. As there was delay in issuing orders, he requested the Secretary of the respondent to allot the work to him at the earliest, by his letter dated 16.10.2002. But to his surprise he found that the tender was cancelled on 25.10.2002 without any reason. According to him, the cancellation of the tender was without complying with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. The respondents re-invited tender by an advertisement in "Dhina Bhoomi" on 26.10.2002 and the tender was opened on 13.11.2002 and the contract was awarded to the second respondent for Rs.32,25,000 and according to the petitioner, the second respondent was the highest bidder in the tender which was opened on 27.9.2002. In W.P.No.41404 of 2002 the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the tender notice dated 23.10.2002 and to allot the contract to the petitioner contending that the action of the respondent was highly arbitrary, unfair and irrational and in violation of the provisions of Act and Rules. The second advertisement relating to the second tender had been published in "Dhina Bhommi" which was neither a familiar Newspaper nor a Daily with good circulation. In W.P.M.P.No.6127 of 2002, the petitioner had prayed for the grant of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the tender notice dated 23.10.2002 relating to the re-invitation of the tenders.

(2.) THE Writ Petition was moved for admission on 15.11.2002 and while admitting the writ petition, interim order was granted as follows: "Confirmation of the contract pursuant to the impugned tender shall stand stayed until further orders. Notice."

(3.) AN additional counter was filed by the first respondent on 28.3.2003 contending that when the Contempt Petition was listed for hearing on 21.3.2003, he was present before the Court and he was informed by his counsel that his appearance was dispensed with. Neither his counsel nor the petitioner's counsel had informed him about the interim stay granted by this Court on 21.1.2003 and only when the orders of the Court were served on him through his counsel, he came to know of the interim order. He immediately instructed the contractor to stop the collection of vehicle parking fee in obedience of the orders of this Court. There was no wilful or wanton disobedience of the order of this Court.