Full Judgment
1. There are four Writ Petitions filed by four Writ Petitioners seeking similar relief to issue writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondent from awarding licence in respect of bar attached to TASMAC Shop Nos.6525,6692,6515 and 6513 Pudukkottai in favour of any participant in tender who has not produced consent letter/No Objection Certificate from the owner of the building where TASMAC bar is located and consequently to direct the respondent to declare the successful tenderers in respect of shop Nos.6525,6692,6515 and 6513, Pudukkottai District.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that after respondent issued notification in his proceedings, dated 09.08.2011 inviting applications for grant of licence to collect empty bottles and to sell eatables at the bars attached to the TASMAC shops in Pudukkottai District, the petitioners after filling up the applications, submitted the same before the respondent on 29.08.2011. Though the tender notice contains several conditions of eligibility to participate in the tender process, one of the conditions was not included to the effect that the intending participants should obtain consent letter/No objection Certificate from the owner of the building where TASMAC bar is going to be housed. Under these circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a Writ petition No.9510 of 2011 was filed challenging the tender notification, dated 08.08.2011 and this Court by order, dated 25.08.2011 passed final order refusing to issue writ of certiorari and instead issued a direction to the respondent to consider only those applications supported with No Objection Certificate-Consent Letter from the respective land owners for allocation of bars attached to the IMFL shops in Pudukkottai District. Therefore the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court is that the petitioners being one of the persons took part in the public auction by making applications for grant of licence to sell eatables and to collect empty bottles in Pudukkottai District, by producing No Objection Certificate/Consent Letter from the owner of the buildings in which the licence has been granted for running bars, alone are entitled to be declared as highest bidders in respect of shop Nos. 6525,6692,6515 and 6513 Pudukkottai District. Since the respondent is going to issue licence to another highest bidder, namely Mr.Murugesan, who has not even complied with the conditions mentioned by this Court in the order made in W.P.No.9510 of 2011, dated 25.08.2011 by not furnishing a copy of the No Objection Certificate, suitable orders should be passed directing the respondent not to award licence in respect of TASMAC Shop Nos.6525,6692,6515 and 6513 Pudukkottai District in favour of any other participant and pass appropriate orders and to declare the highest bidder in respect of TASMAC Shop Nos.6525,6692,6515 and 6513 Pudukkottai District.
3. Opposing the said prayer, the learned counsel for the respondent by relying upon the counter submitted that there is no condition mentioned in the tender notification to receive the application along with No Objection Certificate/Consent Letter from the owner of the building where TASMAC bar is located. So long as there is no condition in the tender notification insisting upon to produce the No Objection Certificate or consent letter from the highest bidder, it is not necessary to pass any order not to receive highest bid from the highest bidder on the ground that no No Objection Certificate has been filed. The said argument has already been answered by this Court in W.P.No.9510/2011, dated 25.8.2011 in the following words;
11. Another difficulty likely to arise is that, if the shop is notified with door number, street name, area etc., and if the land owner or the person, in whose favour No Objection Certificate is given, and inf the bid offered by him is comparatively lower than the others, he cannot be granted the licence as per the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending ( in shops and Bars) Rules, 2005, Transparency in Tender Rules. Therefore, as per procedure for granting licence to IMFL bars within the Districts, i.e., the area, in which, an IMFL shop has to be located can be mentioned in the tender notice and when the tenderers submit their individual tender schedule, along with No objection Certificates from the respective landlords, or when they themselves are landlords and submit the tender schedule, the higher bidder can be selected, if area, where he wanted to locate the IMFL Shop. Such a procedure, would unable all the bidders to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to take part in the tender. Though he contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the location of each and every shops, in Pudukkottai District, had not been notified in the tender advertisement, dated 08.08.2011, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person, for the reason, he has already submitted an application for issuance of tender schedule, for grant of licence to a bar attached to an IMFL shop NO.6515. When the petitioner knowing fully well, about the location of the bar, attached to shop No.6515, has already submitted an application. He has acquiesced, to the terms of the advertisement and it is not open to him to assail the correctness of the same.
12. For the above said reasons, this Court is now inclined to issue a writ of Certiorari,. Writ of Certiorari to quash the tender Notification, dated 8.8.2011 cannot be granted for the reasons stated above. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall consider only those application, supported with No objection Certificate from the respective land owners, for location of a bar, attached to the IMFL shops in Pudukkottai District.
A mere reading of the above order clearly shows that the respondent has already been directed to consider only those applications supported with No Objection Certificate from the respective land owners for allocation of bars attached to the IMFL Shop in Pudukkottai District.
4. Therefore the respondent is bound by the order, dated 25.8.2011 made in W.P.No.9510 of 2011. It was further brought to the notice of this Court that the above said order has not been taken up by way of appeal. In view of that the respondent, State Marketing Corporation Limited, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai District is injuncted from awarding licence in respect of TASMAC Shop Nos.6525,6692,6515 and 6513, Pudukkottai District in favour of any participant, who has not produced the consent letter/No objection certificate from the owner of the building where TASMAC Shop is located and consequently the respondent is further directed to declare the successful tenderers in respect of shop Nos.6525,6692,6515 and 6513, Pudukkottai District, on the basis of the application already received by him.
5. With the above direction, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.