W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.09.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.193030 & 19304 of 2025 P.Savarimuthu .. Petitioner Vs. The General Manager, Dindigul District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., No.9, East Govindapuram, Dindigul – 624 001. .. Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.581/Sales/2023 dated 10.07.2025, and quash the same as illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to finalize the tender notification dated 12.03.2025 issued by the Respondent within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Mareeskumar For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabhu _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 ORDER The present writ petition is filed for the following relief : “to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.581/Sales/2023 dated 10.07.2025, and quash the same as illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to finalize the tender notification dated 12.03.2025 issued by the Respondent within the time stipulated by this Court.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been working as an Agent for the respondent Milk Unit for several years. The respondent union supplies milk and other Dairy products to its customers within Dindigul District. For supplying their products to the customers and sub agents, the respondent had issued a whole sale tender notification for two routes in Dindigul District, namely Vedasandur – Vadamadurai – Guziliamparai and Natham – Sendurai. The tender notification was issued on 12.03.2025 and it was for a period of 3 years from 01.04.2025 to 30.03.2028. The notification directed the eligible candidates to submit the same before the respondent office on or before _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 26.03.2025 at about 6.00 p.m and the date for opening for the tender was fixed on 27.03.2025 at about 11.00 a.m. 3. The petitioner would submit that he had applied seeking to be appointed as the whole sale agent for the above said routes. The petitioner who had invested considerable sum of money in order to fulfil the criteria specified in the tender notification eagerly awaited the opening of the same on 27.03.2025. However, no steps were taken to open the tender. The petitioner would submit that in respect of a different area which also came within the jurisdiction of the respondent union, the tender notification was not finalised and ultimately by orders of this Court, the tender was finalised. The petitioner would submit that even in respect of the subject tender application, the respondent did not open the tender on the date fixed i.e., 27.03.2025 and the respondent retained the applications for 3 more working days without assigning any reason. 4. Since the tender was not opened on the notified dates, the petitioner had sent a detailed representation on 27.03.2025 to the _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 respondent calling upon them to open and finalise the tender. Since no action was taken to dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 27.03.2025, he had filed W.P(MD)No.9390 of 2025 and by an order, dated 03.04.2025, this Court had issued directions to the respondent to pass order on the petitioner's representation after giving him personal hearing. 5. Pursuant to this order, the respondent had sent a communication, dated 21.04.2025 stating that the technical bid has been accepted and the commercial bid would be opened on 22.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner on receiving this communication, had appeared before the tender committee on 22.04.2025 and on opening the commercial bid, it was seen that the petitioner had mentioned a total sum of Rs.4.41/- i.e., Rs.3.70/- for transportation and Rs.0.71 Paisa for service charges. The main committee and the sub committee on seeing the petitioner's quotation felt that it was on the higher side and negotiated with the petitioner for reducing the same. After discussion and negotiation and on the insistence of the committee members, the petitioner had reduced the _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 offer to a sum of Rs.3.90/- i.e., Rs.3.50/- for transportation charges and Rs.0.40 paisa for service charges. The petitioner's quote was accepted unanimously by the committee members on 22.04.2025. The main committee members were the General Manager and The Deputy Registrar for Milk & Diary Development Department. The Sub Committee members were The Assistant General Manager (Milk Production), The Manager (Administration), The Manager (Accounts), The Manager (Marketing) and The Manager (Engineering). The petitioner was awaiting the written orders of confirmation from the respondent. However, once again, there was no response. Therefore, the petitioner sent a detailed representation on 28.04.2025 calling upon the respondent to award the tender. However, to his utter shock, without issuing any notice whatsoever, the respondent had cancelled the tender by stating the a sum of Rs.3.90/- was also on the higher side, this despite the fact that the price was quoted after negotiations. Thereafter, the tender was cancelled without personal notice or opportunity to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner had filed W.P(MD)No. 14076 of 2025 before this Court. By an order dated 08.05.2025, this _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 Court had directed the respondent to pass orders after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and other stake holders and keeping in mind the recommendation of the committee members. The respondent was directed to pass speaking order within a period of twelve (12) weeks. However, there was no reply or awarding of tender in favour of the petitioner. On 20.06.2025, he had sent a legal notice requesting the respondent to comply with the orders of this Court, dated 08.05.2025. Though the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 23.06.2025 and the petitioner had submitted a written representation, no orders were passed and it constrained the petitioner to file contempt petition in Cont.P(MD)No.2083 of 2025. When the matter came up for hearing, the respondent had submitted the order, dated 10.07.2025, wherein the petitioner's application has been rejected. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 7. The records would show that originally on 22.04.2025, it was unanimously decided by all the committee members to accept the negotiated rate i.e., Rs.3.90/- submitted by the petitioner both in respect of Natham route as well as Vedasandur route. The minutes would indicate that it has been signed by all the committee members and it is also been recorded that it is pursuant to orders dated 03.04.2025 in W.P(MD)No.7022 of 2025. There was no dissent made in the said minutes. While so, the very next day, the Manager (Accounts), who was one of the committee members who had unanimously agreed and accepted the petitioner's rate of Rs.3.90/- had submitted an objection contending that the committee's discussion were not free and fair and expressing his revised opinion stating that the bid was a single bid after relaxing QCBS condition. The member opined that normally the tender committee would award 10% hike from the existing rate, but the present rate is more than 75%. The member requested for re-negotiation with the tenderer to reduce the price. Pursuant to this objection, the order dated 22.04.2025 came to be issued whereunder the tender was cancelled by _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 order dated 02.05.2025. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P(MD)No.14076 of 2025. 8. When the matter came up for admission on 08.05.2025, this Court had passed the following order: “9. In the light of the above, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 issued by the first respondent and remit the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent shall, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and other stake holders and also keeping in mind the recommendations of the committee members, pass a considered order, in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is allowed with the above observations and directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” 9. A mere reading of the above clearly indicates the following:- (i) The order, dated 02.05.2025 has been set aside the matter _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 was remitted back to the 1st respondent, namely the General Manager of the Union ; (ii) After giving an opportunity to the petitioner and other stake holders, the 1st respondent was directed to pass orders in accordance with law; (iii) While passing orders, the respondent was directed to keep in mind the recommendations of the committee members; (iv) Speaking orders were directed to be passed within a period of twelve (12) weeks. 10. Despite such a clean order, it appears that this order has not been complied with in letter and spirit. On 19.06.2025, a notice appears to have been despatched by post to the petitioner alone calling upon him to appear before the 1st respondent on 23.06.2025 at 10.30 a.m. to finalise the final price. The petitioner had also appeared on 23.06.2025. On 10.07.2025, the respondent has passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner's request to confirm the sum of Rs.3.90/- as already agreed upon earlier cannot be conceded to and therefore, they had decided to _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 hold a fresh auction. The order would further state that the committee members requested the petitioner to accept a price of Rs.2.50/- and 2.40/-. The order does not give reason as to how this sum has arrived at. However, the decision appears to be foregone and there was no meeting point. Therefore, a fresh auction was sought to be floated. The order in W.P(MD)No.14076 of 2025 clearly stipulates that the 1st respondent has to hear not only the petitioner, but also the other stake holders and keep in mind the earlier recommendations of the committee members and pass considerable order (speaking order). However, the orders have not been passed as directed by this Court. On the contrary, the respondent had directed reissue of the tender. There also does not appear to be any discussion with the petitioner or the other stake holders. 11. Having accepted the price of Rs.3.90/- unanimously, there appears to be no reason for the Manager (Accounts) to revisit his decision the very next day. The manner in which the Manager (Accounts) has reversed his original consent smacks of mala fides and gives rise to serious doubt about his impartiality which is evident from mere reading _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 of the letter, dated 23.04.2025 given by the Manager (Accounts) Mr.P.Balasubramaniam which is extracted hereunder : “Our union has called for tender fo rthe appointment of Whole sale Dealter in the month of March – 2025 and Single Bid had been received and only one tenderer has qualified for commercial bid opening. On 22/04/2025 yesterday, commercial bid was opened and the eligible tenderer has quoted the following rates : 1. For Vedasandur Route – Rs.4.41 (Rs.3.70 + Re.0.71) 2. For Natham Route – Rs.4.41 (Rs.3.70 + Re.0.71) After negotiation with the tender committee, he agreed to reduce the rates as follows: 1. For Vedasandur Route – Rs.3.90 (Rs.3.50 + Re.0.40) 2. For Natham Route – Rs.4.41 (Rs.3.50 + Re.0.40) The above negotiated rates are exorbitant and the percentage of increase is as follows: 1. For Vedasandur Route – 77.27% (Existing rate – Rs. 2.14) _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 2. For Natham Route – 82.24% (Existing rate – Rs.2.20) In continuation of the same, I submit to state that the committee discussions were not free and fair and the committee report was prepared in such a way that these two routes were not operated never before and as new routes, which is going to mislead. Due to the above reasons, I express my revised opinion as below: 1. It is a single bid even after relaxing QCBS conditions. Usually the tender committee award 10% from the existing rate. But the percentage of increase is more than 75% in all the 2 routes. 2. Single bid may be opened and sanctioned when the increase in the rate is normal i.e. 10% or below. 3. In the subject tender we may re-negotiate with the tenderer to reduce his quoted rate to an acceptable price level. If he refuses to do so, we may go for re-tendering which will facilitate more tenderers to participate and reduction of _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 transport cost and service charges. 4. I have signed the committee report on the said matter on 22/04/2025 and now l am submitting my revised opinion. Hence I request to consider the above opinion as final and do the needful please.” The impugned order, dated 10.07.2025 which is extracted hereinbelow would read as follows: “kW Ngr;Rthu;j;ijapd;NghJ> FO cWg;gpdu;fshy; jq;fsJ tpiy kW guprPyid nra;ag;gl;L> ej;jk; kw;Wk; Ntlre;J}u; topj;jlq;fSf;F KiwNa elg;G tpiyahd &. 2.20 kw;Wk; &.2.14 ypUe;J cau;T nra;J> &.2.50 kw;Wk; &.2.40 vd mjpfgl;r tpiyahf cau;T nra;J toq;fpl gupe;Jiuf;fg;gl;lJ. Nkw;gb cau;T nra;J toq;fg;gl;l tpiy Vw;Gilajhf ,y;iy vd jq;fshy; fUjg;gl;L> 22.04.2025 md;W Kjw;fl;lkhf FO cWg;gpdu;fshy; gupe;Jiuf;fg;gl;l tpiyahd &.3.90 tpiyapy; xg;ge;jk; toq;f Nfl;Lf;nfhz;ljhy;> Ngr;R thu;j;ij KbT vl;lg;glhky;> kW xg;ge;jg;Gs;sp %yk;> xg;ge;jjhuiu _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 KbT nra;jpl nghJ Nkyhsu; cs;spl;l FO cWg;gpdu;fshy; gupe;Jiuf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd ,jd; %yk; njuptpj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.” In fact he directs the respondent to consider his opinion as final and the order of subsequent cancellation on 02.05.2025 is only on the basis of this letter and without notice to the successful bidder. 12. Considering the fact that a reasoned / speaking order has not been passed as directed by this Court in its order, dated 08.05.2025 in W.P(MD)No.14076 of 2025, the impugned order, dated 10.07.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent. The respondent shall issue notice not only to the petitioner, but also to the other stake holders as referred to by them and which finds place in Paragraph No.5 of the order in W.P(MD)No.14076 of 2025. The respondent shall consider the objections of all the parties and thereafter, pass speaking order. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 13. with the above directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 23.09.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gbg To The General Manager, Dindigul District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., No.9, East Govindapuram, Dindigul – 624 001. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 P.T.ASHA, J. gbg W.P.(MD) No.24611 of 2025 23.09.2025 _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis