C. SHIVAPPA, J. - (1.) THE contesting parties are respondents 1 and 2 in all these writ petitions. Though the cases are listed for admission, after notice to the learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and private notice to the respondents, since pleadings are complete between the contesting parties, having regard to the urgency urged by the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that traffic has been disrupted and public are put to great inconvenience and that pendency may result in delay in completing the time-bound programme, the matter is taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on either side.
(2.) IN all these writ petitions, since common question of law and fact arise for consideration, they are taken up together and a common order is passed. The only point for consideration in these petitions is, "whether the impugned orders, regarding non-awarding of contracts to the petitioners, suffer from arbitrariness and discrimination and on that count are liable to the quashed "" To determine the point at issue between the parties, certain essential facts are stated thus, Respondent No. 1 by Tender Notice No. 54/CE/CN/97(A), dated 6-10-1987, invited sealed tenders from the approved list of contractors, for gauge conversion work between Madras Beach to Tiruchirappalli, Inchangadu-Valadi Section. The conversion work included assembling, laying and linking of permanent way Broad Gauge Track by PQRS Manual, including dumping and packing of stone ballast. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1308 of 1998 submitted a tender for the work in Serial No. 1(b). The value of the work at Serial No. 1(b) is approximately Rs. 16.97 lakhs and an Earnest Money of Rs. 20, 000/- was required to be deposited alongwith the tender form which costed Rs. 548/-. The petitioner in compliance with all the tender conditions submitted his rates for the work at Serial No. 1(b). Alongwith him, several, other approved contractor also applied for the work at Serial No. 1(b) and the sealed tenders were opened at the Office of respondent No. 2 on 11-11-1997 at 11.30 hrs. The tenders were called for negotiations on 6-1-1998. The negotiation was held by a Committee consisting of respondent No. 2 and other members alongwith the tenderers. The sealed envelopes were opened and the rates quoted by the six tenderers were read out and the rate quoted by the petitioner was the lowest among other tenderers. However, the tender in respect of the work at Serial No. 1(b) has been awarded to the respondent No. 3 herein, by order dated 27-1-1998. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1309 of 1998, submitted a tender for the work in Serial No. 1(c). The value of the said work is approximately Rs. 30.30 lakhs and an Earnest Money of Rs. 30.30 lakhs and an Earnest Money of Rs. 30, 300/- was required to be deposited alongwith the tender form which costed Rs. 658/-. The petitioner had in compliance with all the tender conditions, submitted his rates for the work at Serial No. 1(c). The sealed tenders were opened at the office of respondent No. 2 on 18-12-1997 at 11.30 hrs. and the rate quoted by the petitioner was the lowest among all other approved tenderers. Still, the tender was awarded to respondent No. 3.
(3.) THE petitioner in W.P. No. 1310 of 1998 submitted his tender for the work in Serial No. 1(e) of the Tender Notice No. 54/CE/CN/97(A), dated 8-10-1997. THE value of the said work is Rs. 29.53 lakhs and an Earnest Money of Rs. 29, 600/- was required to be deposited alongwith the tender from which costed Rs. 658/-. THE petitioner in compliance with all the tender conditions submitted his rates for the work at Serial No. 1(e) and the sealed tenders were opened at the Office of respondent No. 2 on 11-1-1997 at 11.30 hrs. THEreafter, the tenderers were called for negotiations on 6-1-1998 before the Committee consisting of respondent No. 2 and two other members. THE rate quoted by the petitioner was the lowest among, the rates quoted by all other tenders but still, the work at Serial No. 1(e) was awarded to respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 2. All these petitioners have voiced a common grievance that they have been enlisted as approved contractors since 1985 and for execution of works costing from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 50 lakhs under the category of Contractor-I and promptly executed all the works entrusted to them and never given any cause for complaint and non-accepting the lowest tender and resorting to the one higher than the rates quoted by them is violative of principles of natural justice and arbitrary exercise of power and or these grounds, the sought for quashing the order of Respondent No. 2 dated 27-1-1998, awarding the contract in respect of Serial No. 1(b) of the Tender Notice dated 6-10-1997 to Respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 1308 of 1998 and for quashing the order of Respondent No. 2, dated 27-1-1998, awarding the contract in respect of Serial No. 1(c) of the Tender Notice, dated 28-11-1997 to Respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 1309 of 1998 and similarly on the same ground for quashing the order of Respondent No. 2 dated 27-1-1998, awarding the contract in respect of Serial No. 1(e) of Tender Notice dated 6-10-1997 to Respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 1310 of 1998. Respondents 1 and 2 in all these petitions have filed counter affidavits, inter alia contending that the petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary party viz., the General Manager, Southern, railway. It is also contended that even though tenders are invited from contractors in the approved list, for the work which is the subject matter of the present writ petitions, the decision to award the contract to a particular contractor is left to the discretion of respondents 1 and 2. The Tender Committee consists of the Deputy Chief Engineer Gauge Conversion-II, Tiruchirapalli, Deputy Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer-II, Madras and Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer (O&G), Madras. Respondents 1 and 2 have to give due weight to all the surrounding circumstances and it is not mandatory to award all the contracts to the lowest tenderers. The Tender Committee was of the opinion that the rates received for the special tender were high and recommended for one round of negotiations. The petitioners also attended the negotiations on 6-1-1998, Clause 9 of the Regulations for the tenders and contract, reserves the right to the administration to accept the tenders in whole or in part or reject any tender or all tenders without assigning any reasons. The Committee, having regard to several factors such as, the nature of work involved capacity of the tenderers to complete the work and also their past performance, decided not to grant tender to the petitioners even though the rates quoted by them were the lowest. The Tender Committee also kept in view the fact that the gauge conversion work between Tambaram and Tiruchirapalli, via the chord line is targeted for completion by March, 1998 and being a prestigious and time bound programme, the Committee felt that it would not be safe and prudent to entrust the important linking work to the petitioners who were recently found to be defaulting contractors. The Committee, after due deliberations considered the fact that the petitioners have failed to complete various other works awarded to them and on that count, chose not to award the contracts to the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners had also not produced any documents to prove and substantiate that they had the capacity, necessary manpower and equipments to execute the linking works in a short period of two months. The Committee, therefore, recommended the second lowest offerors since they satisfied all the requirements. The respondents have also denied the allegation that they have acted arbitrarily and against the principles of natural justice. ;