Thirumurugan vs. The District Collector

Facts

The petitioner, Thirumurugan, filed a writ petition challenging the allotment of Shop No. 6 in the Regulated Market Committee Building, Ramanathapuram, to the fifth respondent, Suseela. The petitioner alleged that the tender process was subverted and that the fifth respondent was not the highest bidder. The tender notification was issued on September 18, 2022, for leasing out 21 shops. The petitioner sought to quash the allotment list dated September 30, 2022, and to direct the respondents to allot the shop to him. The respondents included the District Collector, the Special Officer/Deputy Director of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Ramanathapuram Market Committee, the Superintendent of the Regulated Market Committee, and the fifth and sixth respondents.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. The primary contention of the petitioner was that the tender process was subverted and the fifth respondent was not the highest bidder. The Court examined the original records produced by the respondents and found no suspicious circumstances. The Court also addressed the petitioner's argument regarding the fifth respondent's lack of experience. The counsel for the fifth respondent effectively countered this by presenting evidence of GST registration on June 8, 2021, and filing of returns for May 2022. This demonstrated that the fifth respondent possessed the required one year of experience as a trader and had cleared her GST dues. Based on the absence of suspicious circumstances and the satisfactory demonstration of the fifth respondent's eligibility, the Court found no merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender process for the allotment of Shop No. 6 was subverted, and if the fifth respondent was not the highest bidder, as alleged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner contended that the fifth respondent was not the highest bidder and that the tender process was manipulated to favour her. The petitioner also alleged that the fifth respondent lacked the requisite one year of experience as a trader. Contentions of the Respondents: The learned counsel for the fifth respondent countered the petitioner's allegations. It was argued that the fifth respondent registered under GST on June 8, 2021, and had filed returns for May 2022, demonstrating one year of experience as a trader and clearance of GST dues without arrears. The respondents also submitted that no suspicious circumstances were found in the tender process after reviewing the original records.