R RAVICHANDRAN Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner who is aggrieved by the awarding of transport contract to the 4th respondent by the third respondent is before this court.

(2.) THE third respondent invited tender for transport of Indian Made Foreign Liquor through TASMAC depot, Pollachi to retail units and the said tender is valid for a period from 26.2.2010 to 25.2.2011. THE petitioner participated in the tender (both Commercial Bit and Price Bid). THE tender was opened on 19.2.2010 and the 4th respondent was declared as successful bidder inspite of objections raised by the petitioner that the Commercial Bid submitted by the 4th respondent did not fulfil the terms and conditions of the tender, especially clause 20(b) of the tender document of the Pollachi depot. In this regard, the petitioner gave a representation on 22.2.2010 for review of awarding contract to the 4th respondent, which was rejected by the third respondent on 23.2.2010. Against the said order an appeal dated 25.2.2010 was filed before the second respondent, which was rejected on 5.3.2010 confirming the order of the third respondent. Challenging the above said order only the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) IT is seen from the records that the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent along with two others participated in the bid. The petitioner quoted Rs.4.50 and the 4th respondent quoted Rs.3.90 and therefore the 4th respondent's bid was accepted and he was awarded the contract. If the petitioner is aggrieved with regard to the conditions of the tender, he should have objected the same before participating in the bid or before the opening of the bid on 19.2.2010 and only when the 4th respondent was declared as successful bidder, the petitioner objected and submitted a representation on 22.2.2010 i.e. three days after the opening of the tender. Having gone through the tender document and taken conscious decision to participate in the tender by quoting the bid amount, it is not open to the petitioner to make Hue and cry about the conditions belatedly, when the 4th respondent's bid amount was found to be lower and the 4th respondent was awarded the tender.