J NAGARAJAN Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ARULMIGHU MADURAKALIAMMAN THIRUKOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner contending that he has already offered the lowest bid to the tender notice of the respondents dated 22.7.2002, published in the newspaper on 24.7.2002 for the works stated therein, complains that even after the evaluation of the tenders submitted pursuant to the tender notice dated 22.7.2002 the respondents have issued a fresh tender notice dated 13.8.2002 without canceling the earlier tenders, and seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second tender notice dated 13.8.2002 on the file of the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to select and declare the successful tendered out of the tenders received pursuant to the tender notice dated 22.7.2002 and opened on 30.7.2002.

(2.) Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Section 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') contends that there is an obligation cast on the respondents to negotiate for reduction of price with the tenderer, if they are so advised, in the interest of the revenue to the respondents.

(3.) Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the respondents, even assuming they are empowered to reject the tender, shall do so only under the following circumstances : (a) changes in the scope of procurement, (b) new technologies or substantial design changes, (c) lack of anticipated financial resources, (d) court orders, (e) accidents or calamities, and (f) other unforeseen circumstances. In other words, Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of any of the above conditions the respondents cannot exercise the power to reject the tenders.