w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M. Rajesh Kumar v/s The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Public Works Department, Building (Construction & Maintenance) Division, Medical Service, Madurai & Others

    W.P.(MD)No. 7206 of 2022 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 5442 & 5443 of 2022
    Decided On, 19 April 2022
    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
    For the Petitioner: G. Prabhu Rajadurai, Advocate. For the Respondents : M. Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader.

Judgment Text
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Ceriorari, to call for the records of the impugned tender notification No.01/br.bgh/2021-2022 dated 24.03.2022 on the file of the first respondent and the consequent tender document regarding the running of a canteen in an area of 432 sq. ft in the south-western corner of the Nurses Hostel in Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital Complex and quash the same.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned tender notification dated 24.03.2022 issued by the first respondent involving a canteen at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.

2. The petitioner is running a canteen at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. He has challenged Condition No.8 under the impugned tender notification, on the ground that it is arbitrary, unreasonable and in direct violation of the observation made by this Court in a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.1012 of 2022. According to him, the impugned Condition No.8 is giving unbridled power to the second respondent to exclude any tenderer on his own whims and fancies. It is further contended that the impugned condition is highly confusing and ambiguous and affecting the level playing field between the contractors. It is further submitted that food items can be prepared and supplied at any rate and it is for the tender inviting authority to decide and disclose at what rate and standard the food is to be prepared and sold. It is also contended that impugned condition No.8 was not there in the earlier tenders. According to the petitioner, the impugned Condition No.8 is specifically designed to help the second respondent to achieve what he was prevented from doing by the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1012 of 2022.

3. Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, after referring to the impugned tender Condition No.8 under the impugned tender notification dated 24.03.2022 issued by the first respondent.

5. This Court does not find anything wrong as regards Condition No.8 under the impugned tender condition, which reads as follows:

6. As per the aforesaid condition, any tenderer has to submit the list of items and the price list to the Dean, namely the second respondent herein. It is natural for any prudent purchaser of any product to seek quotations from various parties with regard to the items sought for by them. The present tender notification pertains to running of a canteen in a Government hospital. Quality and price of the food items are very important as patients from different strata of society take medical treatment in the hospital. The price cannot also be exorbitant and the quality of the food item also needs to be maintained. Therefore, Condition No.8 stipulating that any tenderer must submit the items and the price list, cannot be considered to be arbitrary and unreasonable. It cannot also be considered that the impugned condition is highly confusing and ambiguous affecting the level playing field between the contractors. Only to serve public interest, this Court is of the considered view that such a condition namely Condition No.8 has been introduced, though the same was not there in the earlier tender conditions.

7. The order dated 25.01.2022 passed by this Court in W.P. (MD)No.1012 of 2022 was an order passed in a case where the same petitioner has sought for a Mandamus to forbear the respondents from leasing out the right to run the canteen in the campus of the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai pursuant to the proceedings of the Director of Medical Education dated 01.02.2021. Only as a passing reference, learned Single Judge had made the following observations:

'2. But even before proceeding further, I must express extreme dismay at the steps taken by the fourth respondent / Dean, who is not the owner of the premises and that he has no objection for a particular restaurant to run a canteen in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. The Dean is primarily present to administer the college and need not indulge in taking decisions about canteens and such other shops in the said hospital.

3. Let him concentrate, on patients, on students, on laboratories, on medical facilities provided for the patients who come

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
there. Let him not divert his attention on canteens and such other aspects.' 8. The issue involved in that writ petition was totally different from the one that is involved in this writ petition. It has no bearing on the facts of this case. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.