HC dismisses PIL against Sarabanga tender

Observing that thousands of tenders are floated by various government departments in a year and public interest litigations (PILs) cannot be misused as a tool to stall them unless there is a clear case of violation of Article 21 (personal liberty) of the Constitution, the Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a PIL seeking to issue fresh tender notification worth Rs 400 crore for diversion of flood surplus water from the Mettur Dam to the dry tanks in the Sarabanga basin in Salem district for lift irrigation.

A division bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice R Hemalatha while dismissing the plea, said “Any government tender is not an easy process. There are experts in different fields and in this case, the irrigation specialists who are fully qualified and who know the job and the cost estimate for the work have been planned on behalf of the government.”

Also, noting that the tenders, when they are of high value, has its own inbuilt checks and balances and if such petitions are allowed by the Court, the administration will come to a standstill, the bench said. “This petition is purely based on an apprehension. It can also be seen as ‘shadow boxing’ by vested interests who are keen on stalling the tender process. The infirmities pointed out by the petitioner appears to be ill conceived and disruptive,” the bench observed.

“Moreover, in the instant case, the petitioner is not an aggrieved party as he is not a participant in the tender process. He cannot don the role of an expert adviser or that of moral police,” thebench said.

The petitioner, Arulnambi Engineering Consultants in Salem, represented by its managing director had contended that the impugned tender notice suffers from infirmities and that rules pertaining to Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2001 have been breached making the entire process murky and doubtful.

He also contended that public money cannot be allowed to be frittered away in such manner.

Advocate General M Vijay Narayan argued that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the tender process as he is not a participant in the process. He also contended that none of the ‘alleged infirmities’ are true and all the procedures prescribed in the process for inviting tenders as well as the rules of the transparency in tender havebeen followed.

The bench in its order also reiterated that PILs must serve a specific purpose of representing those who are unable to come to the court due to somedisadvantage.