The Madras High Court has initiated suo motu contempt of court proceedings against Greater Chennai Corporation zonal officer R. Govindarasu for commenting in open court that an Additional Advocate General has scored a “same side goal” when the law officer fairly conceded that rules had not been followed in a tender notification issued by the official.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar took serious note of the comment made by the zonal officer, in the rank of District Revenue Officer, against AAG J. Ravindran during the course of hearing a case filed against the tenders called by the zonal officer and directed him to show-cause by February 23 as to why he should not be punished for contempt.
The judge quashed the tender notification issued by the officer on January 25 calling for bids by February 2 for construction of classrooms and staircase in a primary school at a cost of ₹24.49 lakh. The orders were passed on a writ petition filed by S. Mahadevan, a registered contractor, challenging the tender notification.
The petitioner’s counsel V. Elangovan told the court that, as per rules, it was essential to grant 15 days for the bidders to submit their bids or there should be a valid authorisation by an authority superior to the zonal officer for reducing the 15-day time period for submission of bids. Neither of the two conditions had been followed by the officer, he said.
Further, it had been made essential for every bidder to get their e-mail IDs registered with the corporation before submitting their online bids. However, when the petitioner requested the officials to register his e-mail ID, the request was rejected on the ground that it was a limited tender and not an open tender, the counsel said.
In reply, the AAG went through the records and conceded that there was no valid authorisation from the higher officials to reduce the 15-day period and hence there had been a violation of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. While the court appreciated the law officer for being fair, Mr. Govindarasu ended up criticising him.
Expressing displeasure over the official’s “uncharitable comments” against the law officer, the judge wondered why was the officer showing great amount of personal interest in the tender process.
