M/S Durai Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Durai Enterprises and M/s. Subhulakshmi Enterprises, filed writ petitions challenging a tender notification issued by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Department, for collecting hair from devotees at Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukovil, Samayapuram. The impugned tender notification, dated 21.06.2022, contained a new condition (clause 4) requiring tenderers to have at least five years of experience in collecting hair from temples and to submit a certificate to that effect. The petitioners argued that this clause was arbitrary, discriminatory, and inserted to favour specific bidders. They also sought an extension for issuing tender forms and to be issued a tender form without the experience certificate requirement. The respondent contended that the clause was introduced to ensure only experienced and honest tenderers participated, citing a previous instance where GST was not paid by a temple official. The respondent also noted that the tender had been postponed.

Held

The Court noted that when the matters were taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that clause (4) from the earlier tender notification had been removed. Consequently, the petitioners could now participate in the new tender, dated 21.06.2022. As the defects and objections raised by the petitioners no longer existed due to the removal of the impugned condition, the Court recorded this submission. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petitions. The reasoning was that the primary grievance of the petitioners, which was the inclusion of the specific experience clause, had been addressed by its removal. The Court did not delve into the merits of the arguments regarding jurisdiction or the validity of the clause itself, as the issue became infructuous. The ratio decidendi is that if the grievance that forms the basis of a writ petition is resolved by the respondent before the final hearing, the petition can be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether condition No. 4 of the tender notification dated 21.06.2022, requiring tenderers to have at least five years of experience in collecting hair from temples and to submit a certificate, is arbitrary and discriminatory, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the respondent has the jurisdiction to impose such a condition, and if so, on what basis was this material alteration made to the tender conditions? Petitioner's Arguments: - The newly inserted clause (iv) in the tender notification is arbitrary and intended to favour specific bidders, as it was not present in previous tenders or tenders for other temples under the HR and CE Department. - The clause lacks jurisdiction and is based on an unsubstantiated alteration of tender conditions. - The petitioners sought an extension for tender form issuance and to be exempted from submitting the experience certificate. Respondent's Arguments: - The clause was inserted to limit tenderers to seniors and honest participants, ensuring credibility. - The insertion was a precautionary measure due to a previous GST non-payment issue by a temple official, aiming to ascertain the credibility of tenderers from other large temples. - While clauses 5 and 9 call for GST registration and PAN, there is no provision to recover money from defaulting tenderers, hence the clause was to eliminate non-senior tenderers. - The respondent sought accommodation to ascertain how to safeguard the temple's interest in case of GST non-payment by tenderers.