M.Iniyavan vs. The Director

Held

The Court held that it cannot delve into disputed facts concerning alleged manipulation of tender conditions and award of contracts by the TNCSC while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that earlier complaints of a similar nature had been investigated and dismissed as unsubstantiated. The Court found that the petitioner's allegations involved disputed facts that needed to be proved in the manner known to law. Therefore, the Court concluded that if the petitioner was aggrieved, they could approach the appropriate forum by filing a private complaint. The Court did not decide on the merits of the allegations of GST miscalculation or other financial irregularities, as the primary issue was the maintainability of the writ petition for investigating disputed facts.

Facts

The petitioner, a practicing advocate, filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) to register information and take action regarding alleged manipulation of tender conditions by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC) for procurement of sugar, dal, and palmolein. The petitioner alleged collusion between public servants and private entities, leading to inflated prices, elimination of competition, and losses to the public exchequer. The DVAC, in its status report, stated that similar complaints were investigated, witnesses examined, and documents scrutinized, concluding that the allegations were not substantiated. The DVAC's report detailed findings on various tenders, including instances where procurement rates were marginally higher than market prices with valid reasons provided by the Tender Committee, and an instance where GST was erroneously included twice in calculations, leading to a significant financial loss, with recommendations for action against officials and recovery from tenderers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can delve into disputed facts concerning alleged manipulation of tender conditions and award of contracts by the TNCSC, particularly when similar prior complaints have been investigated and found unsubstantiated? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the DVAC's investigation was perfunctory and unscientific, leading to a miscarriage of justice. They contended that tenders were systematically awarded to specific companies at inflated prices through various modus operandi, including arbitrary alteration of eligibility criteria, manipulation of tender conditions, and favouritism, causing substantial losses to the public exchequer and violating the Competition Act, 2002. Respondents' contention: The respondents (DVAC) submitted a status report indicating that similar complaints were investigated, witnesses examined (57), and documents scrutinized (121), and the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated. They argued that the present writ petition, based on the same allegations, need not be entertained and is liable to be dismissed.