Madhan vs. The Government Of Tamilnadu

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petitions based on the submissions made by the respondents. The learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for TASMAC informed the Court that a fresh tender notification was to be published. This new notification would include a revised proposal for the fixation of upset price and modifications to certain conditions. In light of this development, the Court granted two weeks' time from the date of receipt of the order for the concerned authorities to publish the fresh tender. Upon publication, interested parties were to submit their tender forms within fifteen days. The Court clarified that existing parties would be permitted to continue their business operations under the current terms until the new tender process was completed and new persons were declared. Any Demand Drafts previously collected were to be returned forthwith. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioners, including individuals and the TASMAC Bar Owners Welfare Association, filed multiple writ petitions challenging a tender notification dated 03.11.2017 issued by the third respondent (District Manager, TASMAC). This notification invited tenders for collecting empty liquor bottles and selling edibles in TASMAC bars. The petitioners contended that several conditions in the notification were unconstitutional and beyond the powers of the issuing authority under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, and related rules. They also argued that the conditions were not in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Transparency of the Tenders Act, 1998. The specific issues raised related to the fixation of upset price and other conditions imposed on bidders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notification dated 03.11.2017, particularly column 10, conditions 6(A) to 6(E), issued by the third respondent is unconstitutional and beyond the powers vested under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003? 2. Whether the said notification is not in accordance with Sections 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency of the Tenders Act, 1998? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the offending clauses and conditions in the tender notification were arbitrary and unconstitutional. They specifically pointed to the method of calculating the upset price and other conditions that they believed were detrimental to their business interests and not in line with the transparency principles of tender processes. They sought a declaration that these conditions were illegal. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents, including the Government of Tamil Nadu and TASMAC, were represented by learned counsel. The Additional Advocate General and Standing Counsel for TASMAC submitted that a fresh tender notification was going to be published with a new proposal regarding the fixation of upset price and modification of certain conditions.