Plea challenging tender for supply of sandals to school children dismissed

Holding that Shamsons Polymers Pvt Ltd, which had moved the plea, had not made a case for judicial review in award of contracts, Justice R Mahadevan, said “The actions of Tamil Nadu Textbook and Educational Services Corporation (TNTB & ESC) and other agencies involved in the issue of tender are not arbitrary, perverse, mala fide or reflecting favoritism, rather the procedure under the terms and conditions of the tender and provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act and Rules have been followed.”

“It is noteworthy to mention here that the prices have been fixed only after negotiations. Just because the petitioner has quoted a lesser price, that cannot be taken as the market value. Such a question would arise only if the appropriate authority is not satisfied with the negotiations,” the Judge added.

Also, directing TNTB&ESC to proceed and complete the tender process and ensure supply of best quality of shoes to children, Justice Mahadevan also held in his order “It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner who had made allegations without any materials, itself had claimed to have an informer, who not only leaked information about rejection of its technical bid, but also about the price quoted by other participants. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not come to this court with clean hands.”

The petitioner had contended the tender was floated on April 06, 2018 and owing to their samples failing the test in 2017-18, extra care was taken in preparing the samples and clearance report obtained from CSIR Central Leather Research Institute. But while the tender documents were submitted on May 09, 2018, they came to know in the first week of July that a cartel among 5 bidders had emerged to garner the tender. The communication sent to TNTB & ESC in this regard failed to evoke clarification and as expected the tender got rejected on technical grounds.

The plea also alleged that rejecting their tender had caused a loss of Rs 30 crore to the exchequer; technicalities were created to reject the tender without notice to them; the introduction of additional parameters in violation of the tender document is illegal and unjust and the tender process was not conducted in a transparent manner.

However, Justice Mahadevan on rejecting all the contentions raised by the petitioner, said “It is the prerogative of the State or the body inviting the tender to prescribe for pre-qualifications. Such prescription of pre-qualifications cannot be termed as arbitrary or breeding ground for corruption, but rather it is only in public interest that the quality or the specification must be meted out.”