AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In all these writ petitions the action of the first respondent, the management of the Timmala Tirupathi Devastanams (for short T.T.D,''), in granting licence to run the canteen specified in clauses (a) and (b) of the Notification in favour of the second respondent in WP No.31277, and granting licence to nm the canteen in respect of canteen (c) of the Notification in favour of the third respondent iii WP No.31252 of 1998 is called in question. The details of the canteens arc set out in the Tender Notification dated 9-6-1998 issued by the Executive Officer of the T.T.D.
The Petitioner in WP No.31252 of 1998 is a non-applicant. It is his case that when he read the Tender Notification dated 9-6-1998 issued by the Executive Officer of the T.T.D. in daily news papers calling for applications for prequalification for 10 years for running three canteens mentioned in the Notification, wanted to apply for the grant of licence, but he realised that he did not possess the prescribed eligibilities, in the sense that he did not possess the certificate issued by the Tourism Department of the Government of India or by the State Government for a period of 10 years, and, therefore, he did not submit his tenders. It is the further case of the petitioner that if the above condition of eligibility was not prescribed, he would have applied for grant of licences. It appears that in response to notification, as many as 41 applications were received. The tenders were opened and the management of the T.T.D. found that if they were to go by strictly according to the prescribed eligibilities, none of the applicants were qualified to be considered. In that view of the matter and under those circumstances, the counter states, "that the requirement of eligibility would be maintenance of Hotels/Restaurants/catering provision either registered or otherwise is considered as an adequate measure or as an alternative qualification. In other words, the word ''and'' used in para 2 of tender notification is practically to be understood as ''or'', and accordingly the experience in maintenance of hotels is taken into account though there was no recognition or approval by the Tourism Department of the Government of India or by the State Government for a period of 10 years''''. So reading down and interpreting clause (2) of the tender notification, the administration of Devastanam proceeded to consider the applications received by it ultimately resulting in the grant of licences to the second respondent in WPNo.31277 of 1998 in respect of canteens (a) and (b) and grant of licence in respect of canteen (c) in favour of the third respondent in WPNo.31252 of 1998.
Sri E. Mcmohar, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, while assailing the validity of the impugned action of the management of the Devastanam, contended that the impugned action is liable to be nullified solely on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Elaborating his contention, learned senior Counsel would maintain that the petitioner''s right to apply and to be considered for granting largesse of the Devastanam is taken away by the impugned action,
Sri M.R.K. Choudhary, learned senior Counsel appearing for the management of the Devastanam submitted that the word ''and'' occurring in clause (2) of the tender notification is loosely worded, and actually the management construed that word as ''or'', and therefore, it should be construed accordingly, and that if it is so construed, there could not be any legally permissible objection to the impugned action of the management. Sri Choudhary would also point out that clause (4) of the tender notification does not state that any application that might be made in pursuance of the tender notification would be rejected, if an applicant does not enclose the certificate issued by the Tourism Department of Government of India or the State Government, and clause (4) of the tender notification envisages circumstances under which application of a person could be rejected, and they do not include non-production of the certificate. He would also point out that though as many as 41 applicants submitted their tenders, none of them had possessed the above prescribed qualification and nevertheless they chose to submit their applications. Senior Counsel would also maintain that the Petitioner in WP No.31252 of 1998, viz., M. Ravi, is not a bond fide litigant and he is acting as a stooge to air the grievance of the petitioners in the remaining two writ petitions.
Sri G.Raghnram, learned senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent in all the writ petitions would appeal to the Court that this is a very peculiar case where the administration of the T.T.D. took a bona fide decision to award the licence in favour of his client, M.S.Reddy, in the best interest of the pilgrims who visit the shrine and, therefore, there is no warrant for the Court to invoke and exercise discretionary power vested in the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sri Raghuram would also maintain that die WP No.31252 of 1998 lacks in bona fide, and the petitioner therein is set up by the other petitioners who are existing licensees of the canteens.
Although manifold submissions made before the Court by the learned senior Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the short question that falls for consideration and decision is whether Article 14 requirements are complied with by the management of the Devasthanams or not ''? There is no controversy between the parties that the petitioner in WP No.31252 of 1998 is entitled to apply for the grant of licences. Article 14 mandates that when State or public authorities like the administration of TTD proceed to part with their largesse, in whatever form it may be, the right to compete to have the largesse in open competition should be thrown open to all the eligible persons and citizens. Keeping this first cardinal principle of Article 14 and looking at tire facts of this case, i should say that Article 14 requirement noted above is breached in the present case. I say this because it is the specific case of die Petitioner in WP No.31252 of 1998 that when he read the notification calling for applications and the prescribed eligibilities incorporated therein, he understood dial he was not qualified to apply for the award of the largesse, and but for the said prescription of eligibility, he would ha.ve submitted tenders for grant of licences. Clause (2) of the Tender Notification dated 9-6-1998 reads as follows:
"2. Eligibility Criteria; Establishment and maintenance of hotel/restaurants/catering service either registered or otherwise and recognised or approved by the Tourism Department of Government of India or die State Government for a period of 10 (ten) years anywhere in India. Evidence should accompany the application"
Clause (2) is quite un ambiguous, precise and does not admit more than one meaning. There is absolutely no vagueness in the clause (2) for any reasonable person to understand differently. Applying clause (2), it should be stated that an applicant should possess among other things, a certificate issued by the Tourism Department of Government of India or the State Government certifying diat he has been in the establishment and maintenance of Hotels/Restaurants/Catering provision for a period of 10 years. The administration also understood accordingly, and I should say, correctly, as reflected in the counter. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent in WP No.32272 of 1998 it is stated thus:
"While considering various applications the sub-committee has also considered the applicants who do not possess either recognition or approval by the Department of Tourism for die purpose of prequalification and the committee considered their applications if they have required experience in Hotel business and . if they are found fit to have the required financial status. It is necessary to notice that out of 41 applications received only 23 applicants i. e., the petitioner in die above WP and the highest tenderer Sri M. Siiryanarayana Reddy for HVDC canteen could produce a certificate of Star recognition from the Tourism Department w.e.f. 21-2-1989 and 5-2-1996 respectively and the sub-committee found that both of them have less than ten years experience and the certificates produced by both of them did not satisfy the requirement often years standing in the Hotel business. Even the persons having more than ten years experience in the hotel business failed to produce the tourism star recognition certificates. Inspite of the wide publicity in the local newspapers, no applicant who has experience in Hotel business and recognition for over ten years from the Tourism Department has applied for prequalification and if the committee were to go by mere certificate of recognition for a period of not less than ten years, there would have been no application for consideration. The petitioner and Mr. Suryanarayana Reddy who could produce the certificates also could not have ten years of experience in the hotel business as already stated above-As a result the committee was to reject either all the cases for not having the recognition certificate or to ignore that condition. Under these circumstances the requirement of eligibility of establishment maintenance of Hotels/Restaurants/ Catering provision either registered or otherwise is considered as an adequate measure or as an alternative qualification. In other words the word ''and'' used in para 2 of the notification is practically to be understood as ''or'' and accordingly the experience in maintenance of the hotels is taken into account, though there was no recognition or approval by the Tourism Department of either Government of India or the State Government, for a period ten years".
If the administration thought that in view of the prescribed eligibility, there were no applicants to compete or to be considered, the proper course for the administration ought to have been to reissue tender notification relaxing the eligibility so that giving opportunity to all the eligible persons and citizens to apply for the grant of licences. Such a course was not adopted by the management, and on the other hand, it proceeded to read down the word ''and'' as ''or'', in other words, to say that the prescription is only alternative and not a must, and in the progress, granted licences to the contesting private respondents. On this single ground, the Writ Petition No.31252 of 1998 is entitled to be allowed. It is needless to state that if WP No.31252 of 1998 is allowed and the impugned action is quashed, consideration of the remaining two writ petitions separately docs not survive.
Adverting to the contention of the learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, that the Petitioner in WP No.31252 of 1998 is a stooge and set up by the petitioners in other writ petitions and that Writ Petition No.31252 of 1998 lacks of bonafide, suffice it to state that nothing is produced before the Court to satisfy itself that the allegation of the respondents is well founded, except the self-serving averments in the pleadings of the respondents.
In the result, WP No.31252 of 1998 is allowed and the impugned action of the first respondent granting licences to the contesting respondents is quashed. Liberty is reserved to tile administration of the first respondent-Devastanam to reissue tender notification and take further necessary steps to grant licences to run three canteens. Learned senior Counsel appearing for Devastanam submitted that liberty be reserved to the administration to take necessary steps to run the three canteens till fresh steps are taken and tenders are finalised. It is trite to state that the administration is at liberty to take appropriate ad hoc steps to run the three canteens during the interregnum. The WP Nos.31277 and 32272 of 1998 are also disposed of in terms of the order made in WP No.31252 of 1998 with no order as to cost.