R.M.T. Teekaa Raman ORDER
H.G. Ramesh, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation, seeking to quash the Clauses 3(4) and 3(5) of General Conditions as illegal and to direct the respondents to send the samples to any one of the NABL accredited laboratory to check all the desired tests as per bid documents.
2. A brief gist of the facts, which led to the filing of the writ petition, is as under:
"The Government implemented LED Street light Scheme in Tamil Nadu. It is a Central Government funding scheme, involving an estimated cost of Rs. 329 Crores. Tender notices for supply of huge number of 20W LED street lights fitting with complete set, with 5 years warranty, was issued by all the District Rural Development Agency/District Collectors, inviting bidders for the supply of 9,06,310 numbers of LED all over the State. As per Clause 3(4) of the General Conditions/Notification, the samples submitted along with test reports from a NABL accredited Laboratory, with the bid, will be tested at the field by the Electrical Department of Corporation of Chennai. As per Clause 3(5), the bidder should submit proof for having satisfactorily completed similar type of work of not less than 50% of the value of the bid, under a single agreement for a State or Central Government Department/Boards/Government Undertaking/Local Bodies. Contending that imposition of such a condition is a biased one and that it is against the welfare of the public, the petitioner, who is a member of Federation of Anti Corruption Team India, known as FACT India has come up with the above writ petition."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing Clause 3(4) of the General Conditions/Notifications, contended that when the bidder has to submit the samples along with the test report of the samples obtained from the National Accreditation Board for testing and calibration Laboratories, at the time of opening of technical bids, there is no necessity for the respondents to send the samples for testing at the field by Electrical Department of Corporation of Chennai, as the same is illegal, particularly when the Electrical Department of Corporation of Chennai was not having any authorisation from NABL.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that Clause 3(5) of the General Conditions/Notifications, namely the bidder has to submit proof for having completed similar type of work of not less than 50% of the bid value, under a single agreement, that too for a State or Central Government Department/Boards/Government Undertaking/Local Bodies, is without application of mind.
5. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though imposing general conditions of tender is the right of the Government, stipulation of the condition that the bidder should have undertaken similar type of work of not less than 50% of the value of the bid is to enable only the successful tenderers of the last tender to submit their bid, as they alone would be available to satisfy the above condition.
6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the notification issued in the Chennai District, such a condition is not stipulated and therefore, there is a discrimination in the notifications given by each District and that such a condition has been stipulated only by the authorities only to favour one of the bidders.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of recommendations, the samples were tested without any counter check on quality and the eligibility list was prepared and that it is only to accommodate a particular bidder.
8. It is the final contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the act of the respondents in imposing such conditions reflects the non application of mind and it is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, seeks to quash Clauses 3(4) and 3(5) of the General Conditions of the tender/Technical bid.