Metro Water Tanker Lorry Owners Association, Chennai vs The Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No. 1, Chindadripet, Chennai and The Purchase Manager, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No. 1, Chindadripet, Chennai

V. Kanagaraj, J.—Petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the

second respondent relating to the proceedings Lr.NO.CMWSSB/Mat/Board Tanker/Spl.2002 dt.17.5.2002 and quash the same and

consequently direct the respondents to continue to issue work orders to the members of the petitioner association to operate their water tanker

lorries to distribute water in Chennai city.

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the members of the petitioner association are owners of 49

lorries fitted with water tankers and diesel engines supplied by the respondent Board and are being hired by the respondent Board from the year

1993 onwards to supply water to the residents of Chennai till 21.5.2002.

The petitioner would further submit that though the Board conducted tender for the supply of lorries on hire for supplying water to various areas

of the city giving tender notification dated 14.1.2002 calling for quotations from tanker lorry operators opting for lorries of the 1995 and later

models, the petitioner association gave representation on 22.1.2002 and 14.02.2002 stating that they would replace their lorries with required

models in three months from 14.2.2002.

The petitioner would further submit that they were surprised to receive the impugned order passed by the second respondent requiring the

members of the petitioner association to surrender the tankers and diesel engines supplied by the Board; that a plain reading of the tender would

show that it is applicable to the owners of lorry and pump; that the respondents seem to have misconstrued the order of the High Court and

seemed to have passed the impugned order without jurisdiction; that the position of the petitioner is different and not in any way covered or

governed by the earlier decision of the High Court; that the petitioner association did not participate in the tender under the impression that the

respondent Board would continue to hire their lorries as it had been doing for the last 9 years. On such averments, the petitioner would pray for the

relief extracted supra.

In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondents it would be averred that on 11.1.2002, the Board called for tenders, taking into

consideration of the environmental condition and general public safety and to prevent accident, imposing several conditions in the tender and the

petitioner even without filing the tender, pursuant to the tender notification dated 11.1.2002 and the publication of the same on 14.1.2002 has filed

the writ petition on incorrect informations.

The counter affidavit would further mention about an earlier case of the same nature of the petition filed in W.P.No.4782 of 2002 which having

been dismissed by a single Judge of this Court, an appeal in W.A.No.798 of 2002 was preferred and the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court on

16.4.2002 while dismissing the Writ Appeal has held:

It is needless to mention that the First Respondent shall not be entitled to engage any vehicle excepting the vehicles which are manufactured as

water tankers and certified to be so, by the statutory authorities.

The respondents would further submit that more than 314 members of the same association participated in the tender called for by the

respondent dated 11.1.2002 in their individual capacity and hence the allegation of the petitioner that no individual notice was given to the

members of the petitioner association is baseless.

The further averments of the counter affidavit are that the tender called for by the respondent is equally applicable to the lorry owners

association and those members participated in the tender pursuant to the tender notification and hence the averments of the petitioner cannot stand;

that only in the public interest the respondent called for the tenders; that the respondent being a public authority cannot permit the petitioner lorry

owners to continue without participating in the tender since it would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; that the petitioner

has no right to challenge the order passed by the respondent without participating in the tender. On such averments, the respondent would

ultimately pray to dismiss the writ petition.

In consideration of the pleadings by parties, having regard to the materials placed on record, and upon hearing the learned counsel for both what

comes to be known is that the petitioner Association has come forward to file the above writ petition to call for the records of the impugned

proceedings of the second respondent dated 17.5.2002, which is nothing but the closure of the contract issued in favour of the members of the

petitioner further making it known therein that it is not only that the petitioner did not participate in the tender dated 11.1.2002 which the Board

called for but also the respondent Board has called for the members of the petitioner Association to surrender the water tankers and diesel engines

to the Board immediately.

The petitioners would further come forward to allege that their request to comply with the conditions of the tender of the respondent Board

thereby introducing lorries of the model 1995 or later to the same within three months'' time had not been conceded and the Board carried on with

the tender dated 11.1.2002 and hence the writ petition praying to the relief extracted supra.

At this juncture, the question that rages supreme for consideration is `whether in the event of the petitioners making such a request, would the

same be binding on the respondent Board and whether it is incumbent on the part of the respondent Board to comply with such a request made in

view of the fact that members of the petitioner Association have been operating the lorry tanker service for last nearly nine years?''

The straight answer is that there is neither any legal necessity nor any compelling circumstance nor even it is obligatory for the respondent

Board in a binding nature for the acceptance of such a proposal put forth on the part of the petitioners which is purely optional for the Board which

it could either accept or reject and there is absolutely no bearing on the Board to accept such a request made on the part of the petitioner

Association. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim it as of a legal right and bind the respondent Board to the effect of acceptance of their request.

In the above circumstances, the only conclusion that could be arrived at by this Court in the given case is that the petitioners are not entitled to the

relief sought for in the writ petition.

In result, the above writ petition is without merit and the same is dismissed as such.

However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, WPMP.Nos.26055 to 26057 of 2002 are also dismissed.