AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Govindarajan, J.—The petitioner filed the above writ petition Challenging the tender notice dated 8.11.2002 and to direct the
respondents to allot the construction of Rajagopuram at Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Maruthamalai, Coimbatore only to the empanelled
Sthapathis directly.
The petitioners have been selected to include their name in the panel of Sthapathis. They have filed the above writ petition questioning the tender
dated 8.11.2002 under which offers were called for construction of footsteps leading to Rajagopuram with Shopping cum Office complex and
construction of seven Nilai Rajagopuram for Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil, Maruthamalai. Since some work was done by the Tamil
Nadu Construction Corporation, it is stated that for the remaining part of the said work, the said tender was called for. The said tender was
challenged on the basis of Rule-30 of the Management & Preservation of Properties of Religious Institution Rules. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that according to Rule-30, it is mandatory on the part of the respondents to entrust the work regarding construction of any
Gopuram including Rajagopuram, Vimanam, Stone Mandapam or other stone structures with ''stucco'' works or repairs to such construction of
which engineers have no specialised knowledge, to any able stapathi selected from the panel of stapathis approved by the Government from time
to time. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said Rules deal with the ordinary construction work and construction of Gopuram
etc., and with respect to the lands of the temple. Learned counsel on that basis has submitted that only with respect to the construction work, and
any work with respect to the development of land can be entrusted to the contractors. But, with respect to the construction of any Gopuram etc.,
as contemplated in Rule-30 should be given only to the stapathis. According to him, the tenders for doing such work could be called for only from
the empanelled stapathis. Referring to Rule-41, learned counsel submitted that though the Commissioner is having power to exclude the said
temple viz, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Maruthamalai from the operation of any of the Rules, no order was passed by the
Commissioner specifically under Rule-41.
Learned Additional Advocate General while answering the said submission has submitted that Rule-30 does not compel the authorities to call
for the tenders only from Stapathis. The scope of the said rule is that the work regarding construction of Gopuram etc., should be handed over to
the stapathis. So, the question of calling for tenders for construction of Gopuram etc, only from stapathis does not arise. On the basis of the
counter filed by the 2nd respondent, the Additional Advocate General submitted that originally tender was called for from the contractors to do the
work including the construction of Gopuram and that it was sent for approval of the Commissioner. Since the authorities have not complied with
the requirements under Rule-30, the Commissioner had directed to re-issue the tender incorporating the condition to entrust the work with the
stapathis regarding construction of Gopuram. Learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted that the question of getting
exemption under Rule-41 from the Commissioner would not arise in this case, because the tender now called for is strictly in compliance with
Rule-30. This submission was made on the basis of the direction given by the Commissioner to re-issue the tender in accordance with Rule-30.
Before considering the above submissions, it is beneficial to extract the relevant portion of Rule-30 which runs as follows:
The construction of any Gopuram, Vimanam, stone, Mantapam or other stone structure with stucco works or repairs to such construction of
which engineers have no specialised knowledge shall, with the specific sanction of the appropriate authority, be entrusted to any able stapathi,
selected from the panel of stapathis approved by the Government from time to time......
From the said rule as rightly submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, there is no direction to the authorities to call for the tender only
from the panel of stapathis approved by the Government. But from the above said rule it is clear that the construction of Gopuram etc., should be
done only by stapathis. Originally the second respondent called tender for construction of Garpagraham, Arthamandapam and Mahamandapam of
the temple in the year 1991. Since no empanelled stapathis came forward to submit the tenders, the work was entrusted to the Tamil Nadu
Construction Corporation. They have also not completed the work. So, the second respondent called for another tender and it was sent for
approval of the first respondent. The first respondent directed the second respondent to include certain conditions as contemplated under Rule-30.
It is stated in the counter that even though Rs. 1,50,000/- was spent on earlier advertisement, fresh tenders were called for which is impugned in
this writ petition.
From the above it is clear that the first respondent applied his mind with the requirements in respect of Rule-30 and directed the 2nd respondent
to call for fresh tenders so as to satisfy the requirements of the said rule. In the impugned tender in clause-9(f) the applicant not only should be
reputed and experienced construction contractor but also he has to produce letters of acceptance from any of the eligible stapathis from the panel
published by the Department ""for construction of Rajagopuram"". From the above, it is clear that such a letter of acceptance was asked for only to
ensure that empanelled stapathis carrying out the construction of Rajagopuram. Though the rule does not prohibit the respondents from calling for
tenders from the eligible contractors, it compels the authorities that the construction of Gopuram should be done only by the stapathis. From the
impugned tender notice it is clear that though the contractor submits his offer, he has to get a consent letter from concerned stapathi who is in the
panel of stapathis for the purpose of constructing Gopuram. So, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that tenders should be
called for only from Stapathis, cannot be accepted. The purpose of the rule is that the stapathis are having specialised knowledge in constructing
such Gopuram etc., and so it should be done only by them. That is being complied with by incorporating a condition in the tender, this court
expects the authorities strictly implement the intention of the rule relating to construction of Gopuram by stapathis.
Learned counsel further submitted that all the stapathis cannot be permitted to construct Gopuram though they are empanelled but selection
should be done. I am not able to accept the said submission. Even according to the petitioner as stated in the affidavit even before selecting the
stapathis to include in the panel, interviews were conducted in all aspects and only thereafter their names are eligible to be included in the panel. So
the question of making selection again will not arise. Moreover, no such ground is raised in the writ petition.
Since the respondents having complied with the requirements under Rule-30, and the tender is only in accordance with Rule-30, the question of
specific inclusion of Rule-41 does not arise. Moreover, in this case the Commissioner had already applied his mind and directed the 2nd
respondent to re-issue the tender and accordingly it has been re-issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on earlier occasions including the temple in question and also in other temples, tenders
with respect to the construction of Gopuram etc., were called for only from stapathis and hence now the respondent cannot change the practice
which is against Rule-30. When the action taken by the respondent is not contrary to Rule-30 merely because some practice was followed earlier,
this court cannot compel them to follow the said procedure. As stated already now by issuing the impugned tender the respondents have complied
with the requirements under Rule-30. Hence, I do not find any reason to accept the petitioners'' case.
Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.