Madras High Court
I.Kezhson vs The Director Of Town Panchayat on 26 August, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C. Saravanan
2025:MHC:2106
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 30.07.2025
Pronounced on 26.08.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.15603, 15605, 15615, 15617,
5667, 15669, 15611, 15612, 16164 & 16167 of 2025
I.Kezhson ... Petitioner in all
W.Ps.
Vs.
1.The Director of Town Panchayat,
8th Floor,
Urban Administrative Office Campus,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai 600 028.
2.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District
at Nagercoil.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Town Panchayat Department,
Tirunelveli Zone. ... R1 to R3 in all
W.Ps.
4.The Executive Officer,
Kadayal Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Kadayal, Kanyakumari District. ... R4 in W.P.(MD)
No.20235 of 2025
______________
Page No. 1 of 61
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
5.The Executive Officer,
Edaicode Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Edaicode, Kanyakumari District. ... R4 in W.P.(MD)
No.20236 of 2025
6.The Executive Officer,
Kulasekharam Selection Grade
Town Panchayat,
Kulasekharam,
Kanyakumari District. ... R4 in W.P.(MD)
No.20237 of 2025
7.The Executive Officer,
Ponmanai Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Ponmanai, Kanyakumari District. ... R4 in W.P.(MD)
No.20238 of 2025
8.The Executive Officer,
Thiruvattar Town Panchayat,
Thiruvattar, Kanyakumari District. ... R4 in W.P.(MD)
No.20889 of 2025
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.20235 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the tender summary report
of the fourth respondent in Ref.No.165/2025/A1 titled Improvement of
BT Road at Arunkani Anaimugam Road in Kadayal Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District, TURIP 2025-26 dated 09.07.2025 and quashing the
same and consequently directing the fourth respondent to open and
include the price bid of the petitioner in the said tender in Ref.No.
165/2025/A1.
______________
Page No. 2 of 61
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.20236 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the tender summary report
of the fourth respondent in Ref.No.21-2025A1 titled SFC Black topping at
Attukonam Child Nursery Pilavilai to Mithappancode Road in Edaicode
Town Panchayat dated 09.07.2025 and quashing the same and
consequently directing the fourth respondent to open and include the price
bid of the petitioner in the said tender in Ref.No.21-2025A1.
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.20237 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the tender summary report
of the fourth respondent in Ref.No.188/2025/A1 titled SPECIAL FUND
2025-2026 – Improvements CC Road at Ward No.10, Kokottumoolai
Junction to Thetricode Road in Kulasekharam Town Panchayat dated
09.07.2025 and quashing the same and consequently directing the fourth
respondent to open and include the price bid of the petitioner in the said
tender in Ref.No.188/2025/A1.
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.20238 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the tender summary report
of the fourth respondent in Ref.No.274/2025/A1-1 titled SPECIAL FUND
2025-2026, Improvements of BT Road at Ariyambacode Shutter Road and
Improvement of BT Road at Kuttiyani Putham Dam in Ponmanai Town
Panchayat dated 04.07.2025 and quashing the same and consequently
______________
Page No. 3 of 61
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
directing the fourth respondent to open and include the price bid of the
petitioner in the said tender in Ref.No.274/2025/A1-1.
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.20889 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the tender summary report
of the fourth respondent in Ref.No.90/2025/A1 titled SPECIAL FUND
2025-2026 improving the Road at Thiruvattar Charoor in Thiruvattar
Town Panchayat dated 17.07.2025 and quashing the same and
consequently directing the fourth respondent to open and include the price
bid of the petitioner in the said tender in Ref.No.90/2025/A1.
For Petitioner
in all W.Ps. : Mr.Puhazhgandhi
For R1 to R3
in all W.Ps. : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General – II,
assisted by Mr.D.Ghandiraj
Special Government Pleader
For R4
in all W.Ps. : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan
Government Advocate
*****
COMMON ORDER
By this common order, all these five Writ Petitions are being
disposed of.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
2. In these Writ Petitions, the Petitioner has challenged the Tender
Summary Reports. By the impugned Tender Summary Reports, the
Petitioner's bids, in respect of the tenders floated by the respective Town
Panchayats, were rejected during the technical evaluation.
3. The details of the tender notifications, dates and reference
numbers of the Impugned Tender Report, reasons for rejection of the bids,
and the names of the persons to whom the contracts have been awarded
are detailed below:-
Sl. W.P. Tender ID No. Impugned Tender Reason Name of
No (MD) Summary Report for the
No. Date Reference No. rejection successful
bider
1 20235/25 2025_DTP_567350_1 09.07.25 165/2025/A1 Sl.No.7, MJD
8, 10, 12 Construction
properly and
not Engineering
enclosed Contractors
P. Ltd
2 20236/25 2025_DTP_564565_1 09.07.25 21-2025A1 Sl.No.7,
8, 10, 12 -do-
- properly
not
enclosed
3 20237/25 2025_DTP_564867_1 09.07.25 188/2025/A1 Reject S.Peter
4 20238/25 2025_DTP_565210_1 04.07.25 274/2025/A1-1 Reject MJD
Construction
and
Engineering
Contractors
P. Ltd
5 20889/25 2025_DTP_565257_1 17.07.25 90/2025A1 Reject -do-
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
4. These tenders were floated by the following Panchayats for the
projects under the scheme mentioned below, on the respective dates:
Sl. W.P.(MD) Panchayat Date of Name of the Projects
No No. Name Tender
Notf
1 20235/25 Kadayal 21.05.2025 Providing BT Road at Kattavilai
Town Nanthankadavu Road in Kadayal Town
Panchayat Panchayat
2 20236/25 Edaicode 30.05.2025 Black Topping at Attukonam Child Nursery
Town Pilavilai to Mithappancode Road in
Panchayat Edaicode Town Panchayat
3 20237/25 Kulasekhar 02.06.2025 Improvements CC Road at Ward No.10
am Town Kokottumoolai Junction to Thetricode Road
Panchayat in Kulasekharan Town Panchayat
4 20238/25 Ponmani 02.06.2025 Improvements of BT Road at Ariyambacode
Town Shutter Road and Improvement of BT Road
Panchayat at Kuttiyani Putham Dam in Ponmanai
Town Panchayat
5 20889/25 Thiruvattar 30.05.2025 Improving the Road at Thiruvattar Charoor
Town in Thiruvattar Town Panchayat
Panchayat
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
5. The specific case of the Petitioner is that the reasons for rejection
of the bid in the tenders pertaining to W.P.(MD) Nos.20237, 20238 &
20889 of 2025 were not communicated to the Petitioner, and therefore, the
same is in contravention of Rule 32A(4) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency
in Tenders Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
6. That apart, the further case of the Petitioner that the opening of
the bid on the specified date was not done in the presence of the Petitioner
and were thus in gross violation of Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu
Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'),
read with Rule 21(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders
Rules, 2000.
7. That apart, it is submitted that, while opening the tender, the
signature of the Petitioner was not obtained as is contemplated under the
Act. It is further submitted that out of the three bidders involved in the
tenders pertaining to W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 and 20236 of 2025, except for
the Petitioner, the two other bidders, namely, Manikandan and MJD
Construction and Engineering Contractors Private Limited belong to the
same group.
8. It is submitted that the said Manikandan is the husband of
Mrs.D.Janaga Jebangalin, who is none other than the shareholder and
Managing Director of the said MJD Construction and Engineering
Contractors Private Limited.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
9. It is therefore submitted that awarding of contract is contrary to a
series of guidelines issued by the Central Government, which are
applicable to the State Government, as these projects are funded by the
Central Government. It is submitted that it has resulted in a single
effective bid being considered, in violation of the CBC Guidelines issued
by the National Rural Road Development Agency, Ministry of Rural
Development, Government of India, in P17025/33/2011/P-1/RC dated
15.01.2013.
10. It is further submitted that the Courts have repeatedly frowned
upon the practice of accepting a single tender, as reiterated by this Court
in Kandasami vs. The Commissioner of Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department and others, in W.P.(MD) No.13508 of 2023,
MANU/TN/3202/2023 vide Order dated 09.06.2023.
11. The learned counsel for the Petitioner drew attention to the
definition of ''single tender'' as per the aforementioned guideline of the
Central Government.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
12. It is further submitted that apart from the tenders pertaining to
W.P.(MD) Nos. 20235 and 20236 of 2025, the bids of the same MJD
Construction and Engineering Contractors Private Limited were the only
ones accepted in the tenders pertaining to W.P.(MD) Nos. 20238 and
20889 of 2025. It is further submitted that the bid of one Mr.S.Peter was
accepted in the tender pertaining to W.P.(MD) No.20237 of 2025.
13. It is submitted that the tender process was orchestrated only to
award contracts to the said MJD Construction and Engineering
Contractors Private Limited in respect of four tenders and to Mr.S.Peter in
respect of one tender and thereby defeating the very object of fair
competition.
14. It is submitted that although the dates for opening the bids were
fixed as on 17.06.2025 in respect of the tenders which are the subject
matter of W.P.(MD) Nos.20235, 20236, and 20889 of 2025 and
20.06.2025 in respect of the tenders which are the subject matter of W.P.
(MD) Nos.20237 and 20238 of 2025, the bids were eventually opened on
09.07.2025 without informing the bidders, thereby violating Rules 21 and
22 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
15. Taking through the records filed in support of these Writ
Petitions, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, although the
documents required under Annexures A to F were not in the prescribed
format, all relevant information were indeed uploaded in the form of
annexures to the Statement of Accounts, duly certified by the Chartered
Accountant, which had been filed before the Income Tax Authorities. It is
further submitted that Annexures G and H in any event were filed.
16. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, if
there is substantial compliance with the tender documents, the bid cannot
be rejected. In this connection, reference is made to Clauses 23.1 and 23.2
of the Tender Document, as per which, prior to the detailed evaluation of
the Technical Bids, the Tender Scrutiny Committee shall determine
whether each bid is substantially responsive to the requirements of the Bid
Documents.
17. As per Clauses 23.1 and 23.2 of the Tender Document, it is
clear that a substantially responsive bid is one which conforms to all the
terms, conditions, and specifications of the Bid Documents without
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
material deviation or reservation. A material deviation or reservation is
one which, in any substantial way, affects the scope, quality, or
performance of the works; or limits, in any substantial way, inconsistent
with the Bidding Documents, the employer's rights or the bidder's
obligations under the contract; or is such that its rectification would
unfairly affect the competitive position of other bidders submitting
substantially responsive bids.
18. That apart that the so-called work orders, which were issued
during the pendency of the present Writ Petitions, cannot be countenanced
in view of Clause F of the Tender Document.
19. As far as W.P.(MD) No.20237 of 2025 is concerned, the
rejection of the Petitioner’s bid was based on reasons not contemplated in
the Tender documents. It is submitted that no reason has been given in the
impugned tender summary reports, as far as W.P.(MD) Nos.20237, 20238
& 20289 of 2025. It is further submitted that although the bid of
Mr.S.Peter had not filed any of the required documents yet the contract
has been awarded to him.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
20. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that since the tender was opened only on 09.07.2025, two work orders
could not have been issued on 10.07.2025, as appears to be predated. This
is because the procedural requirements for issuing the work order would
require a minimal but reasonable amount of time to complete.
21. It is submitted that there is an embargo on the Respondents from
accepting the bid of Mr.Manikandan and M/s.MJD Construction and
Engineering Contractors Private Limited. It is submitted in terms of the
Order dated 28.04.2025 passed by this Court in K.Manikandan vs. The
District Collector, Kanyakumari District and another, in W.P.(MD) Nos.
19664 and 20084 to 20086 of 2023. A specific reference is made to
paragraph 17 of the said Order dated 28.04.2025.
22. In K.Manikandan vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari
District and another, in W.P.(MD) Nos.19664 and 20084 to 20086 of
2023, it was observed as under:
“17. However, in the instant case, having allowed the
petitioner as well as the construction company in which
the petitioner as well as his wife, Mrs.D.Janaka
Jebangalin, are equal equity shareholders, the
respondents have failed in ensuring a level playing field
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
preventing potential manipulation of the bidding
process. In line with the order passed by this Court in
W.P.(MD)No.2166 of 2023 dated 23.03.2023, I hereby
reiterate the order of this Court again by directing the
respondents to prevent the writ petitioner as well as his
wife in the name of MJD Construction and Engineering
Contractors Private Limited in participating in the
same tender process in future.”
23. It was however informed that these Writ Appeals are pending
before the Division Bench in W.A.(MD) Nos.1683 to 1686 of 2025. After
this case was reserved 'For Orders' on 30.07.2025, W.A.(MD) Nos.1683 to
1686 of 2025 were partly allowed by the Division Bench vide its Order
dated 04.08.2025.
24. The observation in Paragraph 17 of Order dated 28.04.2025 in
K.Manikandan vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District and
another, in W.P.(MD) Nos.19664 and 20084 to 20086 of 2023 dated
28.04.2025 has been set aside by the Division Bench vide Order dated
04.08.2025 with the following observation:-
“5.We carefully considered the rival contentions
and went through the materials on record. We note that
the appellant had challenged the impugned tender
processes on the grounds set out in the affidavits filed
in support of the writ petitions. As already mentioned,
we do not propose to interfere with the order of the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions.
However, in Paragraph 17, the learned Single Judge
has passed an adverse direction not only against the
appellant but also against his wife Ms.D.Janaka
Jebangalin and the company MJD Construction and
Engineering Contractors P Ltd. Neither the appellant's
wife nor the said company were parties to the writ
proceedings. We are therefore of the view that making
an adverse observation or direction against them
would be in breach of the principles of natural justice.
Ms.D.Janaka Jebangalin is no doubt the wife of the
appellant. No order or observation can be passed
without specifically impleading her. A woman on
account of becoming wife does not lose her independent
status. She continues to retain her personality. But
whether on account of the statutory rules, her acts
would attract any disqualification is a matter to be
decided in her presence and after putting her on
notice. Feminists take exception even to the
employment of the expression “husband/wife”.
Spouse/partner/marital partner are the preferred terms
of usage to discourage such relationships.
6. It is for this reason, we set aside the adverse
observation and direction set out in Para 17 and
elsewhere of the order of the learned Single Judge. At
the same time, the larger issues raised by the
impleaded private respondent cannot be lost sight of.
Even while sustaining the order of dismissal passed by
the learned Single Judge, we remand this issue
regarding confidentiality and conflict of interest among
the tenderers/bidders for determination to the file of the
fifth respondent.
7.We are constrained to make an order of
remand for more reasons than one. While according to
the respondents, the appellant is having 50%
shareholding in the company, the appellant denies the
same. According to him, he had relinquished all his
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
share-holdings almost two decades ago. The case on
hand involves a company. While there is a specific
disqualification provision in Tamil Nadu Tender
Transparency (Public Private Partnership
Procurement) Rules 2012, under the parent Act as well
as in the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules,
2000, there is no corresponding provision. It is true
that the Hon'ble First Bench in Kumbhat Holographics
v. State of Tamilnadu, appears to have placed reliance
on the said Rule. But in that case, it was a partnership
firm that was involved. In the case on hand, there is an
incorporated limited company. In any event, we do not
want to go into the merits of the rival contentions. It is
for the government to take a call in the first instance.
Thereafter, in exercise of judicial review, the
correctness of the stand taken by the fifth respondent
can be examined.
8.We are conscious that the fifth respondent is
not the appellate authority but considering the public
importance of the issue and its application for the
entire State, we direct the fifth respondent to issue
notice to the appellant, his spouse Ms.Janaka
Jebangalin as well as MJD Construction and
Engineering Contractors P Ltd, the impleaded
respondent R4 herein and other stakeholders and take
a call on merits and in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible. We hope and trust that final
decision on the issue will be taken within four weeks
from today.
9.These writ appeals are partly allowed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
25. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on
the decision of this Court in Kandasami Vs. The Commissioner of Rural
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
Development and Panchayat Raj Department and Ors.,
MANU/TN/3202/2023.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
26. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the 1st to 3rd Respondents submits that none of the
required documents for proceeding with the tender bid were uploaded by
the Petitioner. It is submitted that Annexures that were uploaded by the
Petitioner were without any details and that therefore during the technical
evaluation, the bids of the Petitioner were rejected.
27. Further, it is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate
General for the 1st to 3rd Respondents that opening of the tender was duly
informed to each of the applicants. It is submitted they who were free to
verify the reasons given for the rejection of their bids. Moreover, it is
submitted by the Respondents that Annexures A to H, which were
mandatory to be submitted along with the tender documents, were left
blank by the Petitioner. It is submitted that on this ground alone, the
tender was rejected during the technical evaluation on 09.07.2025 as per
the impugned Tender Report dated 09.07.2025.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
28. The learned Additional Advocate General for the 1 st to 3rd
Respondents further submits that the documents filed by the Petitioner
were blank and incomplete, leading the tender evaluation authority to
reject the petitioner's offer in the bid dated 09.07.2025.
29. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate
General for the 1st to 3rd Respondents that after the tender was opened on
09.07.2025, the work orders were issued on 10.07.2025, 10.07.2025,
22.07.2025, 04.07.2025 & 01.07.2025, thereby, creating third-party rights
in favour of M.J.D. Construction and another. It is submitted that the
Petitioner has not taken any steps to implead these parties, who are likely
to be affected, if these Writ Petitions are allowed. Therefore, it is
submitted that the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground
as well.
30. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate
General for the 1st to 3rd Respondents that the case does not pertain to a
'single tender'. It is submitted that the concept of 'single tender' applies
only where there are no participants. In the present case, there were at
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
least three or four bidders in respect to the respective tender and two of
them were selected following evaluation at the technical stage and
thereafter after the price bid was opened.
31. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that
the tender was floated electronically, i.e., through e-tender, and therefore,
there is no requirement for physical presence. Hence, the objection of the
Petitioner that they were not present or not intimated cannot be
countenanced. It is submitted that all information is communicated
electronically, and it is open to the Petitioner to check their emails to
ascertain the status.
32. In this connection, the learned Additional Advocate General
relied on the following decisions:
i. Tata Motors Limited vs. The Brihan Mumbai Electric
Supply and Transport Untertaking (Best) and others,
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467.
ii. Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and others, (2007)
14 SCC 517.
iii. N.G.Projects Limited vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and others,
(2022) 6 SCC 127.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
33. By way of rejoinder, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
the Petitioner that, as per Clause 28.4 of the Tender Document, a
successful bidder is required to pay an amount equivalent to 2% of the
contract value within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the
Letter of Acceptance, and further, as per Clause 31.3, to sign the
agreement within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of the
Letter of Acceptance. Only thereafter can a formal work order be issued.
Therefore, no work order could have been issued.
DISCUSSION:
34. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the 1st to 3rd Respondents and the learned Government
Advocate for the 4th Respondent.
35. Before proceeding further, I shall refer to a few decisions of the
Court, some of which were also cited during the course of hearing.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
Scope of Judicial Review in tender matters
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of
Orissa., (2007) 14 SCC 517 held as under:
“22. Judicial review of administrative action is
intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality,
unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to
check whether choice or decision is made ‘lawfully’
and not to check whether choice or decision is ‘sound’.
When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters
relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain
special features should be borne in mind. A contract is
a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and
awarding contracts are essentially commercial
functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay
at a distance. If the decision relating to award of
contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts
will not, in exercise of power of judicial review,
interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in
assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The
power of judicial review will not be permitted to be
invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public
interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer
or contractor with a grievance can always seek
damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful
tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride
and business rivalry, to make mountains out of
molehills of some technical/procedural violation or
some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere
by exercising power of judicial review, should be
resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may
hold up public works for years, or delay relief and
succour to thousands and millions and may increase
the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise
of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the
following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made
by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour
someone;
OR
Whether the process adopted or decision made is so
arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: ‘the
decision is such that no responsible authority acting
reasonably and in accordance with relevant law
could have reached’;
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no
interference under Article 226. Cases involving
blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a
tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse
(allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships
and franchises) stand on a different footing as they
may require a higher degree of fairness in action.”
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd.
v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216, relying on its earlier decisions
once again held as under:
“23. From the above decisions, the following
principles emerge:
(a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in
action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in
essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
play. These actions are amenable to judicial
review only to the extent that the State must act
validly for a discernible reason and not
whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State
acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it
would be legitimate to take into consideration the
national priorities;
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within
the purview of the executive and the courts
hardly have any role to play in this process
except for striking down such action of the
executive as is proved to be arbitrary or
unreasonable. If the Government acts in
conformity with certain healthy standards and
norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting
tenders, in those circumstances, the interference
by courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a
tender document and awarding a contract,
greater latitude is required to be conceded to the
State authorities unless the action of the
tendering authority is found to be malicious and
a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by
courts is not warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for
tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the
contractor has the capacity and the resources to
successfully execute the work; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act
reasonably, fairly and in public interest in
awarding contract, here again, interference by
court is very restrictive since no person can
claim a fundamental right to carry on business
with the Government.
24. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or
contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial
review, should pose to itself the following questions:
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
i. Whether the process adopted or decision
made by the authority is mala fide or intended to
favour someone; or whether the process adopted or
decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that
the court can say:
“the decision is such that no responsible
authority acting reasonably and in
accordance with relevant law could have
reached”? And
ii. Whether the public interest is affected?
If the answers to the above questions are in the
negative, then there should be no interference under
Article 226.”
38. Same principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Tejas Constructions & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Council,
Sendhwa., (2012) 6 SCC 464.
39. In Uflex Limited v. Government of Tamil Nadu., in Civil
Appeal Nos. 4862- 4863 of 2021 dated 17th September 2021, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court examined various decisions on the scope of judicial
review and observed that the courts can interfere with the contractual
matters, to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and
mala fide.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
40. It held that the Division Bench in Kumbhat Holographics v.
Government of Tamil Nadu., 2021 SCC Online Mad 1724 committed an
error by almost sitting as an appellate authority on technological and
commercial expediency, which was not the role which a court ought to
play.
41. In Uflex Limited v. Government of Tamil Nadu., in Civil
Appeal Nos. 4862-4863 of 2021 dated 17th September 2021, the Court
held as under:
“49. A lot of emphasis has been placed by the
Courts below in seeking to go into the financial
linkages between the two companies, i.e., Uflex and
Montage. The correct way of examining this issue
should have been that whether under the terms of the
NIT, any of the aspects which were examined by the
Courts could be said to be a disqualification. In our
view, the answer to the same was in the negative. One
company had invested in another through certain
preference shares without having any controlling
interest, this cannot be the basis of judicial scrutiny.
The present case is not one of an intercorporate battle
or of minority shareholders claiming the rights or any
debts due, where the principle of lifting the corporate
veil should be applied. What one may have said in some
income tax proceedings, whether a small percentage of
the funds of one company have been utilized as
investment in the other are hardly the principles which
should come into play in such a tender matter.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
50. We are thus unequivocally of the view that the
impugned order cannot be sustained for all the
aforesaid reasons and must be set aside and the
appeals are accordingly allowed.”
42. It is also relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
State of Punjab and others vs. Mehar Din, (2022) 5 SCC 648 has
reiterated that the scope of judicial review in the matters of tenders/public
auction where allegations of illegality, irrationality and procedural
impropriety is true, it would be sufficient for Courts to assume
jurisdiction and remedy such ills.
43. The Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Mehar Din,
referred to supra further held that the acceptance of the highest bid or
highest bidder is always subject to conditions of holding public auction
and the right of the highest bidder is always provisional to be examined in
the context in different conditions in which the auction has been held.
44. In Sterling Computers Ltd Vs. M & N Publications Ltd.,
(1993) 1 SCC 445, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Paragraph 12 as under:
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
“Under some special circumstances a discretion has to
be conceded to the authorities who have to enter into
contract giving them liberty to assess the overall
situation for purpose of taking a decision as to whom
the contract be awarded and at what terms. If the
decisions have been taken in bona fide manner
although not strictly following the norms laid down by
the Courts, such decisions are upheld on the principle
laid down by Justice Holmes, that Courts while judging
the constitutional validity of executive decisions must
grant certain measure of freedom of play in the joints to
the executive.”
45. Though each of the decisions referred to supra bring out the
legal position, it is evident that application of these principles has to be
held that they were given in the facts and circumstances of those cases.
Therefore, there is no one correct answer, as the Courts have intervened
in certain cases and in certain other cases the Courts have not intervened
in awarding tender to the successful bidder at the behest of the party who
was eliminated.
46. However, what is discernible is that if the procedure followed
in awarding the tender to a contract or elimination of a bidder has been
unfairly done, it can be a subject matter of a judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the fact that the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
aggrieved party can be relegated to work out the alternate remedy by way
of an appeal under Section 11 of the Act.
47. The general law applicable as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 is relevant.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India referred
to supra in Paragraph 94 of the Judgement laid down the key principles
for judicial review of administrative action. Paragraph No. 94 of the
Judgement reads as under:-
“94. The principles deducible from the above are:
1. The modern trend points to judicial restraint in
administrative action.
2. The court does not sit as a court of appeal but
merely reviews the manner in which the decision
was made.
3. The court does not have the expertise to correct
the administrative decision. If a review of the
administrative decision is permitted it will be
substituting its own decision, without the
necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
4. The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be
open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to
tender is in the realm of contract. Normally, the
decision to accept the tender or award the
contract is reached by process of negotiations
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
through several tiers. More often than not, such
decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
5. The Government must have freedom of contract.
In other words, a fair play in the joints is a
necessary concomitant for an administrative
body functioning in an administrative sphere or
quasi-administrative sphere. However, the
decision must not only be tested by the
application of Wednesbury principle of
reasonableness (including its other facts pointed
out above) but must be free from arbitrariness
not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.”
48. Before proceeding further to the discussion, it will be useful to
refer to certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders
Act, 1998 and the Rules framed thereunder, i.e., the Tamil Nadu
Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, the Tamil Nadu Transparency in
Tenders (Public Private Partnership Procurement) Rules, 2012 and the
relevant clauses from the Tender Document.
49. As per Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders
Act, 1998, Rule 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules,
2000 was inserted into the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules,
2000, vide G.O.Ms.No.93, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated
30.03.2023, which came into effect on the same date.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
50. Rule 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules,
2000 mandates that all tendering activities for government procurements
may be conducted as specified by order. The Government of Tamil Nadu
is to conduct through electronic mode via its web portal
[https://tntenders.gov.in].
51. Rule 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules,
2000 reads as under:
“4-A. The Government may mandate procuring entities
to do procurement through electronic mode through web
portal as may be specified by order.”
52. Rule 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules,
2000 would therefore cover all stages of procurement i.e., from the stage
of floating the bid to issuing the Letter of Award. Therefore, any
procedure is followed outside the online portal after the specified date has
to be considered to have been followed in violations of the prescribed
procedure.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
53. Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act,
1998 deals with evaluation and acceptance of tender which reads as
under:
“10. Evaluation and Acceptance of Tender.-
(1) The Tender Accepting Authority shall cause
an objective evaluation of the tenders taking into
consideration the schedule of rates as mentioned in the
tender document and the prevailing market rate for
procurement and comparison of the tenders in
accordance with the procedure and criteria specified in
the tender document.
(2) After evaluation and comparison of tenders as
specified in sub-section (1), the Tender Accepting
Authority shall accept the lowest ascertained on the
basis of objective and quantifiable factors specified in
the tender document and giving relative weights among
them:
Provided that the Tender Accepting Authority
shall accept the tender of domestic enterprises, not
being the lowest tender, upon satisfaction of such
conditions as may be prescribed, in respect only of
goods manufactured or produced and services provided
or rendered by them, and only to the extent of not
exceeding twenty five per cent of the total requirement
in that procurement, if such domestic enterprise is
willing to match the price of the lowest tender:
Provided further that the Tender Accepting
Authority shall accept the tender of a department of
Government, Public Sector Undertaking, Statutory
Board and other similar institutions as may be notified,
not being the lowest tender, upon satisfaction of such
conditions as may be prescribed, in respect only of
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
goods manufactured or produced and services provided
or rendered by them, and only to the extent of not
exceeding forty per cent of the total requirement in that
procurement, if such tenderer is willing to match the
price of the lowest tender:
Provided also that in case of a single
procurement, the total procurement under the above
two provisos shall not exceed forty percent of the total
requirement in that procurement.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (2), if the Tender Accepting Authority decides
that the price of the lowest tender is higher with
reference to the prevailing market rate or the schedule
of rates, the said authority may negotiate for a
reduction of price with that tenderer.
(4) If at any time before the acceptance of tender,
the Tender Accepting Authority receives information
that a tenderer who has submitted tender has been
banned by any Procuring Entity, the said authority
shall not accept the tender of that tenderer even if it
may be the lowest tender.
(5) In case where two or more tenderers quoted
the same price, the Tender Accepting Authority shall
split the procurement among such tenderers taking into
consideration the experience and credentials of such
tenderers. Where such splitting is not possible or could
not be done equally, the said authority shall record
reasons for the same.
(6) If the Tender Accepting Authority proposes to
accept the tender as per the provisions of this section,
the said authority shall pass orders accepting the
tender together with reasons for such acceptance:
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
Provided that if the tenderer is unable to supply
the entire quantity required, the Tender Accepting
Authority may follow the fixed rate contract procedure
as may be prescribed.
(7) The Tender Accepting Authority shall
intimate the information regarding the name and
address of the tenderer whose tender has been
accepted along with the reasons for rejection of other
tenders to the appropriate Tender Bulletin Officers.”
54. Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998
deals with the Opening of Tender which is reproduced below:-
“8. Opening of Tender.-
The Tender Accepting Authority or any other officer
authorised by it, shall open the tenders in the presence
of tenderers present and who have submitted tenders in
such time and in such place as may be specified in the
tender document.”
55. Rule 21 and 22 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders
Rules, 2000 have to be read along with Rule 4A of the Rules. Rule 21 and
22 of the Rules further deals with the Opening of Tender and procedure to
be followed during tender opening. They are reproduced below:
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu
Transparency in Tenders Rules, Transparency in Tenders Rules,
2000 2000
21. Opening of Tenders.- 22. Procedure to be followed at
tender opening.-
(1) All the tenders received by
the Tender Inviting Authority shall The following procedure shall be
be opened at the time and venue followed at the tender opening.-
specified in the Notice Inviting
Tenders and in cases where an (a) All the envelopes containing
extension of time for the tenders and the tenders received
submission of tenders has been through the electronic mail in the
given subsequent to the original designated website shall be
Notice Inviting Tenders in counted.
accordance with sub-rule (5) of rule
18 at the time so specified (b) All the tenders received in
subsequently. The e-submitted time shall be opened.
tenders may be permitted to be
opened by a Tender Inviting (c) Any tender received
Authority or a member of the subsequently shall not be opened
Tender Scrutiny Committee from and shall be returned unopened to
their new location if they are the tenderer and in the case of
transferred after the issue of Notice tenders submitted through
Inviting Tender and before tender electronic mail in the designated
opening and where the new website, a report on the late
incumbent is yet to obtain his submission of tenders shall be
digital signature certified. generated and the same shall be
sent to the tenderers concerned.
(2) The time specified for the
opening of tenders shall be (d) On opening of the tender, the
immediately after the closing time members of the Tender Scrutiny
specified for the receipt of tenders Committee shall initial the main bid
allowing a reasonable period, not including the prices and any
exceeding one hour, for the corrections.
transportation of the tenders
received to the place they are to be (e) A record of the corrections
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
opened in the presence of the noticed at the time of the bid
tenderers who choose to be present. opening shall be maintained.
(3) The tenders will be opened in (f) The name of the tenderers
the presence of the tenderers or one and the quoted prices should be
representative of the tenderer who read out aloud.
chooses to be present.
(g) the fact whether earnest
money deposit has been submitted
and other documents required
produced may be indicated, but this
shall be merely an examination of
the documents and not an
evaluation.
(h) Minutes of the tender opening
shall be recorded.
(i) The signatures of all the
tenderers present shall be obtained
and if any of the tenderers or his
representative refuses to sign the
minutes, the same shall be recorded.
56. Rule 32-A(4) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders
Rules, 2000 deals with Pre-qualification with multi-stage tendering. It
reads as under:
“32-A. Pre-qualification with Multi-stage
Tendering.-
(4) At the conclusion of the first stage, the Tender
Accepting Authority shall pre-qualify the tenderers that
fulfill the eligibility criteria, and promptly notify each
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
tenderer whether or not it has been pre-qualified and
shall upon request communicate to the tenderers that
have not been pre-qualified the reasons therefor:
Provided that if the Tender Accepting Authority
is of the view that the number of pre-qualified
Tenderers is too small to have an effective competition,
the authority may decide not to proceed further with the
Tender.”
57. The point for consideration in these Writ Petitions are as under:-
(a) What is the scope of Judicial review in Tender
matters?
(b) Whether failure on the part of the Petitioner to
upload the documents/necessary information as per
the format prescribed in the tender document was
fatal?
(c) Whether failure on part of the Respondents to open
the tender in the presence of the bidders is fatal and
whether E-tenders are also to be opened in the
presence of the bidders only. If so, whether it is
feasible?
(d) Whether postponement of the opening date of the
tender by the Respondents from
17.06.2023/26.06.2023 to 09.07.2023 without prior
intimation to the Petitioner and other bidders can be
construed to be fatal?
(e) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, it could be construed to fall within the
ambit of 'single tender', considering the fact the MJD
Construction and Engineering Contractors Private
Limited and the other bidder, namely Manikandan
are closely related to each other?
(f) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in W.A.
(MD). Nos. 1683 to 1686 of 2025 vide its Order
dated 04.08.2025 between the parties involved
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
herein has any bearing on the tender that was floated
by the 4th Respondent?
(g) Whether the issuance of 'Work Orders' on
10.07.2025 immediately after opening of the Tender
on 09.07.2025 is contrary to the tender process
stipulated under the Act and Rules?
58. Facts on record reveal that after the bids were opened and there
were technical evaluations of bid followed by evaluation of the price bid
and thereafter works orders have been issued on the following dates to the
successful biders as detailed below:
Sl. W.P.(MD) Panchayat Name Date of work Name of the successful
No No. order bidder
1 20235/25 Kadayal Town Panchayat 10.07.2025 MJD Construction and
Engineering
Contractors P. Ltd
2 20236/25 Edaicode Town Panchayat 10.07.2025 MJD Construction and
Engineering
Contractors P. Ltd
3 20237/25 Kulasekharam Town Panchayat 22.07.2025 S.Peter
4 20238/25 Ponmani Town Panchayat 04.07.2025 MJD Construction and
Engineering
Contractors P. Ltd
5 20889/25 Thiruvattar Town Panchayat 01.07.2025 MJD Construction and
Engineering
Contractors P. Ltd
59. Though, the details of the tenders have been tabulated in the
beginning of this Order, it will be useful to once again refer to the crucial
dates.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
Sl. W.P.(MD) Panchayat Name Date of Date of opening Actual date of
No No. Tender Not. of Tender as opening of
per Tender Tender
document
1 20235/25 Kadayal Town 21.05.2025 17.06.2025 09.07.2025
Panchayat
2 20236/25 Edaicode Town 30.05.2025 17.06.2025 09.07.2025
Panchayat
3 20237/25 Kulasekharam Town 02.06.2025 20.06.2025 09.07.2025
Panchayat
4 20238/25 Ponmani Town 02.06.2025 20.06.2025 09.07.2025
Panchayat
5 20889/25 Thiruvattar Town 30.05.2025 17.06.2025 09.07.2025
Panchayat
60. In this case, the procedure under Rule 32A(2) of the Rules has
been followed as the first stage was technical evaluation of the bids of the
respective bidders. In this case, the Petitioner has been eliminated during
the technical evaluation of the bids for the reasons that were explained in
the beginning of the Order.
61. In this case, there are sufficient indicators that the Petitioner has
made out a case for this Court to examine the procedure adopted by the
Tender inviting authority up to the stage of elimination of the Petitioner at
the stage of technical evaluation of the bid and undue alacrity showed in
issuing the work order to the aforesaid parties, the successful bidders in
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
tenders which are the subject matter of these Writ Petitions. Therefore,
the alternate remedy under Section 11 cannot be put against the Petitioner
to work out the remedy before the appellate authority.
62. In this case, admittedly the tender notification was floated on
the online portal therefore, all the proceedings that is uploading of the
bids i.e., tender documents and communication of the decision to
postpone the opening date to a subsequent date has to be through the web
portal and to the designated email ids of the respective bidders who have
responded to the tender notification.
Whether failure on the part of the Petitioner to upload the
documents/necessary information as per the format prescribed
in the tender documents was fatal?
63. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Sales Corpn. v. Bolangir
Trading Co., (2005) 3 SCC 157 held that documents/ information to be
supplied in support of Government contracts as a precondition or
qualifications for tenders is mandatory, where the Rules and conditions
governing tender and advertisement calling therefor make it mandatory to
supply certain information/document by the bidders.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
64. There the Court had held that the High Court was not justified
in coming to the conclusion that production of said documents was not
mandatory. Thus, the Court held that this finding of the High Court was
contrary to records and was an error apparent on face of record. The Court
further held that moreover, material later supplied by Respondent to
establish that he met the preconditions/qualifications did not really
establish the same.
65. As mentioned above, in a case where a procuring authority
invokes the multi-stage tendering process and calls for initial submissions
containing their applications or proposals without a financial bid, the Bid
shall contain the following items, namely:
(a) proposals relating to the technical, quality or
performance characteristics of the subject matter of
the procurement;
(b) contractual terms and conditions of supply;
(c) where relevant, the professional and technical
competence, experience and qualifications of the
tenderers.
66. In this case, the Petitioner has filed all the documents required.
However, they were not in the format prescribed in the tender document.
The Petitioner has been disqualified by the tender accepting authority only
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
because the Petitioner failed to upload the documents in the formats. As
per Clause 23.1 of the Tender document, prior to the detailed evaluation
of technical bids, the Tender Scrutiny Committee will determine whether
each Bid
(a) meets the eligibility criteria defined in Clause 22.
(b) has been properly signed.
(c) is accompanied by the required securities, and
(d)is substantially responsive to the requirements of
the Bid documents.
67. Even if the documents filed are insufficient as long as the bids
satisfy the test of “substantially responsive” to the requirements of the
Bid documents, the bid of a tenderer cannot be rejected, even in the case
of the multi stage tendering. In fact, as per Clause 23(1) of the Tender
document which is extracted above, the expression substantially
responsive bid has also been defined in Clause 23.2 of the Tender
document. Further, in accordance with Clause 23.3 of the Tender
document, a bid can be rejected only if the bid is not substantially
responsive it can be rejected.
68. Clause 23.2 and 23.3 of the Tender document are reproduced
below:
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
Clause 23.2 of the Tender Clause 23.3 of the Tender
document document
A substantially responsive Bid is
one which conforms to all the
terms and conditions, and
specifications of the bid
documents without material
deviation or reservation. A
material deviation or reservation
is one
If a Bid is not substantially
(a) which affects in any
responsive, it will be
substantial way the scope, quality
rejected by the Employer,
or performance of the Works
and may not subsequently be
made responsive by
(b) which limits any in
correction or withdrawal of
substantial way, inconsistent with
the non-conforming
the Bidding documents, the
deviation or reservation
Employer’s right or the Bidder’s
obligations under the Contract or
(c) whose rectification would
affect unfairly the competitive
position of other Bidders
presenting substantially
responsive Bids.
69. This Court while dealing with an issue pertaining to rejection of
tender bid in M. Vasudevan Vs. The CEO, CMDA, Chennai and others,
2005 SCC OnLine Mad 154 based on the facts of that case held an order
rejecting tender is not a quasi judicial order nor is it even an
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
administrative order which affects rights and liabilities, thus overruled the
submissions of the Writ Petitioner that no reasons were given in the order
rejecting the petitioner's tender.
70. The Court further held that neither reasons have to be given in
the said order nor opportunity of hearing has to be given before passing
the said order. This decision was rendered prior to the insertion of Rule
32-A to Rules. Perhaps, it is for this reason, Rule 32-A was inserted into
Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.425 dated 11.12.2012 which mandates furnishing
of reasons where a bid is rejected in case of multi stage tenders.
71. Therefore, based on the Division Bench of this Court in
Vasudevan Vs. The CEO, CMDA, Chennai and others, (cited supra), the
argument that the impugned Tender Summary Report was not furnished
with the reasons has to be viewed from the perspective of Rule 32-A of
the Rules. Suffice to state that a Tender Inviting Authority is not required
to furnish the reasons for rejecting a bid at the time of rejecting a bid.
There should be sufficient reasons for a Tender Inviting Authority to
reject a bid of a bidder during the technical evaluation or finacial
evaluation of the bid. However, in case a bidder seeks for reasons the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
same has to be provided to the bidder in terms of Rule 32-A of the Rules,
content of which has been extracted above.
72. However, prior to the detailed evaluation of technical bids, the
above procedure in Clause 23.1 of the Tender document ought to have
been followed. In this case, the 4th Respondent as Tender Inviting
Authority has mechanically rejected the bid of the Petitioner. Thus, the
rejection of the bid of the Petitioner warrants interference.
Whether failure on part of the Respondents to open the tender
in the presence of the bidders is fatal and whether E-tenders
are also to be opened in the presence of the bidders only, if yes,
whether it is feasible?
73. In this case, admittedly the procedure has not been followed.
Clause 22.1 of the Tender document states that the Tender Inviting
Authority (Executive Officer) will open all the Technical Bids, subscribed
as Technical Bid/received (except those received late), including
modifications made pursuant to Clause 21, in the presence of the Bidders
or their representatives who choose to attend at 3.30 P.M. on 17.06.2025
at Town Panchayat Office, Kadayal and that in the event of the specified
date of Bid opening being declared a holiday, the Bids will be opened at
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
the appointed time and location on the next working day. This would be
inconsonance with Rule 21(3) of the Rules.
74. Text of Clause 22(3) and 22(4) of the Tender document are
reproduced below:
Clause 22.3 of the Tender Clause 22.4 of the Tender
document document
The Bidders’ names, the Bid The Tender Inviting Authority
withdrawals/Modifications, the (Executive Officer) shall prepare
presence or absence of Bid security the minutes of the Bid opening
and such other details as the Tender including the information disclosed
Inviting Authority (Executive in those present in accordance with
Officer) may consider appropriate, Sub-Clause 22.3
will be announced by the Tender
Inviting Authority (Executive
Officer) at the opening Bids sent
pursuant to Clause 21 that are not
opened and read out at bid opening
will not be considered for further
evaluation regardless of the
circumstances
75. Even if the tender is to be opened by the Tender Inviting
Authority or the member of the tender scrutiny committee from a remote
location after issuance of the Tender notification, the opening of the
tender is to be in a particular location where all tenderers or one
representative of the tenderers are physically present. Thereafter, the bid
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
may be opened virtually however, it has to be at a particular time and
place where each of the bidders are physically present.
76. This would be from a harmonious reading of Rule 21(1), 21(2)
and 21(3) of the Rules. Mere communication of the time for opening the
bid electronically through email is not sufficient. A venue has to be fixed
where the bidders/tenderers can be present, even if the Tender Inviting
Authority / Tender Scrutiny Committee opens the bid from a remote
location after their transfer i.e., after the issuance of the Tender
notification and before the tender opening date, where the new incumbent
is yet to obtain his digital signature certified.
Whether postponement of the opening date of the Tender by
the Respondents from 17.06.2025/20.06.2025 to 09.07.2025
without prior intimation to the Petitioner and other bidders
can be construed to be fatal?
77. As per the Rules, the Tender Inviting Authority is empowered to
postpone the dates for reopening of the bid. However, while postponing
the date, the Tender Inviting Authority has to inform the
bidders/tenderers. In this case, the initial date fixed for opening the bid
was postponed which is in contravention of the Rules. Incidentally,
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
recently interpreting Rule 11 of the Rules, this Court has explained the
scope of the scheme in Sree Krishna Constructions and others Vs. The
Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
and another, vide order dated 15.07.2025 rendered in W.P.(MD) Nos.
15275, 14753 & 14744 of 2025. Relevant Paragraphs are extracted
hereunder:
“17. As far as the purpose of enacting the Tamil
Nadu Transparency in Tender Act, 1998 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’) is concerned, it is provided for
transparency in public procurement and to regulate the
procedure for inviting and accepting tenders and the
matters connected therewith or incidentally thereto.
This founds in the preamble to the Act. Further
objective of the enactment of the Act is under:
“WHEREAS to maximise economy and
efficiency in Government procurement;
AND WHEREAS to foster and encourage
effective participation by tenderers in the process of
tenders;
AND WHEREAS to promote healthy
competition among tenderers;
AND WHEREAS to provide for fair and
equitable treatment of all tenderers;
AND WHEREAS it is expedient to eliminate
irregularities, interference and corrupt practices in
the matters relating to tender processes by
providing transparency in such matters;
AND WHEREAS to promote the integrity of
the process of tenders and to promote fairness and
public confidence in the processing of tenders by
ensuring transparency in the procedure relating to
procurement;”
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
18. To give effect to the provisions of the Act, the
Rules has also been conferred, in the exercise of power
under Section 22(1) of the Act. The object of the Act
and the Rules made thereunder are laudable and
intended to ensure that there is a fair play in public
participation in the tenders, so that there is no
arbitrary, awarding of the contract as was done prior
to enactments, which are made to several work orders
being awarded to the contractors to be cancelled as
arbitrary.
19. Rule 20 of the Rules contemplates that
minimum period shall be given to prospective bidders
(tenderers) to make their bids. In case Tender
Notification has to be issued for the tender upto Rs.10
crore, minimum 15 days has to be given and in case
Tender Notification has to be issued for the tender for
excess Rs.10 crore, minimum 30 days has to be given.
20. In this case, although the intention was to
comply with the requirement of the Rule 20 of the Act
by making a paper publication on 30.04.2025 by giving
the period for downloading the tender documents and
for prescribing last date for making the bid as
16.05.2025, the Tender Notification was uploaded in
the web site only on 12.05.2025 with the last date as
16.05.2025 and thus, only four days were given.
Thereafter, further extension was given upto
23.05.2025 and thereafter, upto 29.05.2025.
21. A reading of Rule 17(1) of the Rules indicates
that at any time after the issue of the tender documents
and before the opening of the tender, the Tender
Inviting Authority may make any changes,
modifications or amendments to the tender documents
and shall send intimation of such change to all those
who have purchased the original tender documents and
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
upload corrigendum for the information of those who
have downloaded the tender documents from the web
site.
22. This Rule 17(1) of the Rules would apply to
the situations where the tender document is issued and
the time line prescribed under Rule 20 has been
followed. This would also apply to the situations where
the offers are being received and therefore, changes are
being incorporated in the timelines and therefore, this
situations would not apply to these cases under
consideration.
23. As per Rule 17(2) of the Rules, in case any
tenderer asks for a clarification on the tender
documents before 48 hours of the opening of the tender,
the Tender Inviting Authority shall ensure that a reply
is sent and copies of the reply to the clarification
sought shall be communicated to all those who have
purchased the tender documents without identifying the
source of the query and upload such clarification to the
designated website for the information of those who
have downloaded the tender documents from the
website, without identifying the source of the query.
24. Thus, Rules 17(2) of the Rules will only apply
where the changes are made before the opening of the
tender warranting modification or amendment to the
tender documents. The Tender-Inviting Authority is
expected to send intimation of changes to those who
have purchased original tender documents and
uploaded corrigendum for the information to those who
have downloaded the tender documents from the web
site.
25. Rule 18 of the Rules, on the other hand, deals
in Chapter 5 of the Rules, is regarding receipt of tender
and opening of tender. As per Rule 18(1) of the Rules,
Tender Inviting Authority has to ensure that adequate
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
arrangements are made for proper receipt and safe
custody of the tender for the receipt of tender.
26. As far as Rule 18(5) of the Rules is
concerned, the Tender Inviting Authority can extend the
last date and time for receiving the tender, which has to
be published in the designated web site also after giving
adequate notice to all the intending tenderers in cases
where,
(a) the publication of the tender notice has
been delayed;
(b) the communication of changes, in the
tender documents to the prospective tenderers
under sub-rule (1) of rule 17 took time;
(c) any of the tenderers requested
clarifications, the communication of which took
time to all the tenderers; and
(d) any other reasonable grounds exist, for
such extension which shall be recorded in writing
by the Tender Inviting Authority.
(e) in the case of tenders not submitted
electronically, the tenderer shall ensure that all the
pages are serially numbered and the submitted
tender documents are properly stitched and bound.”
78. In the present case, there was no prior intimation to the
Petitioner and other bidders that the initial dates fixed for opening of the
bid were postponed to 09.07.2025. Therefore, in this case also it has to be
held that rejection of the bid on the technical evaluation was arbitrary as
it has been done behind the back of the Petitioner.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
would it fall under the ambit of “single tender”?
79. In Kandasami Vs. The Commissioner of Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj Department and Ors., MANU/TN/3202/2023 case
referred to supra dealt with it was observed as under:
''13.In the said guideline with respect to determination
of a single tender and with respect to opening of single
bid tendered, it had been provided as follows:-
“A. Definition of Single Tender: If, consequent to
invitation of tenders/bids for any package, only one
bid/tender is received or consequent to technical
evaluation if only one bid/tender is found eligible,
such bids/tenders shall be termed as single tenders
for the purposes of PMGSY*.
B. Opening of Single Bids/Tenders: If in the first
invitation/call, single bid is received, the State
Rural Roads Development Agency (SRRDA) or
authority inviting the tenders/bids shall not open
the bid. In such cases the bids shall be re-invited.
Modification in the e-procurement software shall
be made by the NIC to delete the bid (while
maintaining the data in the data base) from the
server after the date of opening of bids and
generate appropriate reports in this regard.”
* Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana
80. This Court while dealing with the relationship between two
different parties participating in the tender in P. Ravishankar Vs. State of
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
Tamil Nadu, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 5965 dealt with a situation where
four bidders participated in the bids for the works under Package Nos.59
and 60. The technical bids of the 4th and 5th Respondents there were
accepted. There the 5th Respondent was a partnership firm whose partners
were the wife and son of the 4th Respondent in W.P.13481 of 2021. The 5th
Respondent in W.P.No.13488 of 2021 was a firm (actually should have
been a company) whose Managing Director was the son of the 4th
Respondent. Following the views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uflex
Limited Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (cited supra), this Court in
P.Ravishankar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (cited supra) held as follows:
“51. A cursory glance at the decision extracted
above would reveal that the supreme court commented
upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court
with respect to the issue dealing with technological
and commercial expediency of the companies. After
having found that the objective set out by the
Government in the said case was relating to use of
technology as would prevent spurious liquor from
being sold, the supreme court has observed that it must
be left to the state Government to see how best to
maximize its revenue and what is the technology to be
utilized to prevent situations like spurious liquor,
which in turn would impede revenue collection, apart
from causing damage to the consumers. It was further
observed by the supreme court that in every tender,
there are certain qualifying parameters whether it be
technology or turnover; the court cannot sit over in
judgment on what should be the turnover required for
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
an entity to participate; that, it is not really the
function of the court to vet the terms of the notice
inviting tender, as it is the decisionmaking process,
which can be reviewed in judicial scrutiny. Ultimately,
the supreme court has set aside the Division Bench
judgment and accordingly, allowed the appeals.
Whereas, in the instant case, the petitioner raised a
plea of conflict of interest as the respondents 4 and 5
in both the cases are closely related to each other,
though they are doing business by establishing
separate entities, besides challenging the tender
process on the ground of arbitrariness, malafide and
violative of the mandatory requirements as laid down
under the Rules and hence, the facts obtaining herein
are clearly distinguishable from the case decided by
the supreme court.
52. Thus, for the aforemade discussions, this
court is of the considered opinion that the conflict of
interest is against the principle of fairness and hence,
the close relationship between the respondents 4 and 5
in both the cases, assumes great significance as it
undermines the tender process and hence, the same
cannot be disregarded in judicial review.”
81. In the present case, it is noticed that out of the three bidders
involved in the tenders pertaining to W.P. (MD) Nos.20235 and 20236 of
2025 except for the Petitioner, the two other bidders namely,
Mr.Manikandan and the successful bidder in this batch of Writ Petitions
except in the W.P.(MD) No.20237 of 2025, namely MJD Construction
and Engineering Contractors Private Limited were closely related.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
82. Further, the said Mr. Manikandan was allowed to participate in
the bid even though there was a restraining order of the Court in
M.Manikandan Vs. District Collector & Ors vide Order dated 28.04.2024
in W.P.(MD) Nos.19664 and 20084 to 20086 of 2023 relating to tender
for the work namely setting up the Kuzhivilai Melandukodu Kattukulam
Salai, Parayan Vilai Thala Veettu Vilai Salai, Kuzhiyalvilai Tharisu Vilai
Salai, Kuppottukulam Ooralivilai Salai, Thengangudal Vilai,
Mathiravilagam Salai, Kavankulam Kovil Vattam Salai and Sivankovil
Mattrathu Vilai Salai providing Cement Stone.
83. In Paragraph No. 17 of the Order dated 28.04.2024 in
M.Manikandan Vs. District Collector & Ors., there was an embargo on
the Tender Accepting Authority, namely the fourth respondent, against
permitting MJD Construction and Engineering Contractors Private
Limited and M.Manikandan to submit their bid and participate in the
tender process. Paragraph No.17 of the Order dated 28.04.2024 is
extracted hereunder:-
“17. However, in the instant case, having allowed the
petitioner as well as the construction company in which
the petitioner as well as his wife, Mrs. D.Janaka
Jebangalin, are equal equity shareholders, the
respondents have failed in ensuring a level playing field
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
preventing potential manipulation of the bidding
process. In line with the order passed by this Court in
W.P.(MD)No.2166 of 2023 dated 23.03.2023, I hereby
reiterate the order of this Court again by directing the
respondents to prevent the writ petitioner as well as his
wife in the name of MJD Construction and Engineering
Contractors Private Limited in participating in the
same tender process in future.”
84. Even though Paragraph No. 17 of the Order dated 28.04.2024 in
M.Manikandan Vs. District Collector & Ors in W.P.(MD) Nos.19664
and 20084 to 20086 of 2023 contained a negative injunction against the
successful bidder, namely MJD Construction and Engineering Contractors
Private Limited, in this batch of Writ Petitions except in the W.P. (MD)
No.20237 of 2025, the bid of MJD Construction and Engineering
Contractors Private Limited was, admitted, accepted, scrutinised and
eventually awarded the work orders.
85. Therefore, the acceptance of the bid of these two persons was
impermissible in the light of Paragraph No. 17 of the Order dated
28.04.2024 in M.Manikandan Vs. District Collector & Ors in W.P.(MD)
Nos.19664 and 20084 to 20086 of 2023.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
Fall out of the Order of Division Bench:-
86. The Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 04.08.2025
in W.A.(MD) Nos.1683 to 1686 of 2025, while partly setting aside the
above Order dated 28.04.2024 in M.Manikandan Vs. District Collector
& Ors, observed as under:
“6. It is for this reason, we set aside the adverse
observation and direction set out in Para 17 and
elsewhere of the order of the learned Single Judge. At
the same time, the larger issues raised by the
impleaded private respondent cannot be lost sight of.
Even while sustaining the order of dismissal passed by
the learned Single Judge, we remand this issue
regarding confidentiality and conflict of interest
among the tenderers/bidders for determination to the
file of the fifth respondent.
7.We are constrained to make an order of
remand for more reasons than one. While according to
the respondents, the appellant is having 50%
shareholding in the company, the appellant denies the
same. According to him, he had relinquished all his
share-holdings almost two decades ago. The case on
hand involves a company. While there is a specific
disqualification provision in Tamil Nadu Tender
Transparency ( Public Private Partnership
Procurement) Rules 2012, under the parent Act as well
as in the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules,
2000, there is no corresponding provision. We do not
want to go into the merits of the rival contentions. It is
for the government to take a call in the first instance.
Thereafter, in exercise of judicial review, the
correctness of the stand taken by the fifth respondent
can be examined.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
8.We are conscious that the fifth respondent is
not the appellate authority but considering the public
importance of the issue and its application for the 7/9
entire State, we direct the fifth respondent to issue
notice to the appellant, his spouse Ms.Janaka
Jebangalin as well as MJD Construction and
Engineering Contractors P Ltd, the impleaded
respondent R4 herein and other stakeholders and take a
call on merits and in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible. We hope and trust that final
decision on the issue will be taken within four weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9.These writ appeals are partly allowed. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
87. The Division Bench has directed issuance of notice to the these
two parties. In this case, this exercise could not be done as the Tender has
already been floated on.
88. Since the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD) Nos.1683
to 1686 of 2025 has already held in Paragraph No.8 of Order dated
04.08.2025 as extracted above and in the beginning of the Order, the
qualification of the two bidders namely., MJD Construction and
Engineering Contractors Private Limited and Mr.Manikandan is required
to be considered in the light of the observation of the Division Bench vide
Order dated 04.08.2025, if this exercise has not been done.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
Whether issuance of ‘Work Order’ immediately after opening
of the Tender is fatal
89. That apart, the Respondents have proceeded to award the
contract with alacrity and undue hurry on the following days vide Work
Orders dated 10.07.2025, 10.07.2025, 22.07.2025, 04.07.2025 and
01.07.2025, though awarding of the contract would require further
procedures to be complied by a person who crosses the first threshold of
technical evaluation. Thus, it is evident that the Tender was floated only
to award a contract to the successful parties. Therefore, on this count also
the decision of the Tender inviting authority is liable to be interfered with.
90. As far as the rejection of the bid of the Petitioner during
technical evaluation challenged in W.P.(MD) No.20237 of 2025 is
concerned, the reasons for the rejection of the bid during the technical
evaluation are not contemplated in the tender documents. Therefore, on
this count also, the elimination of the Petition during technical evaluation
is liable to be set aside and the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.
91. Since the impugned tender summary reports rejecting the bids
of the petitioner at the technical evaluation stage are being quashed, there
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
shall be a direction to the 4th Respondent in the respective Writ Petitions,
i.e., the Executive Officer of the respective Selection Grade Town
Panchayats, to accept the petitioner's bids at the stage of technical
evaluation.
92. The 4th Respondent in the respective Writ Petitions is therefore
directed to examine the offer of the petitioner and thereafter award the
contract to the bidder whose bids meet the criteria under the respective
Tender Notifications. This shall be after the Order of the Division Bench
of this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.1683 to 1686 of 2025 dated 04.08.2025
are complied. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two
weeks from today.
93. In view of the above discussion, the objection of the Petitioner
that there was effectively only a single tender, is left open to be decided
by the Respondent, if fresh tenders are to be called for and if the two
bidders namely, MJD Construction and Engineering Contractors Private
Limited and Mr.Manikandan are found to be ineligible.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
94. In view of the above, the respective Work Orders dated
10.07.2025, 10.07.2025, 22.07.2025, 04.07.2025 and 01.07.2025 issued
during the pendency of these Writ Petitions are quashed.
95. In the result, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
26.08.2025
JEN
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
Issue Order copy on 28.08.2025
To
1.The Director of Town Panchayat,
8th Floor, Urban Administrative Office Campus,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai 600 028.
2.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District
at Nagercoil.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Town Panchayat Department,
Tirunelveli Zone.
4.The Executive Officer,
Kadayal Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Kadayal, Kanyakumari District.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
5.The Executive Officer,
Edaicode Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Edaicode, Kanyakumari District.
6.The Executive Officer,
Kulasekharam Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Kulasekharam,
Kanyakumari District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Ponmanai Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Ponmanai,
Kanyakumari District.
8.The Executive Officer,
Thiruvattar Town Panchayat,
Thiruvattar, Kanyakumari District.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
C.SARAVANAN, J.
JEN
Pre-Delivery Common Order made
in
W.P.(MD) Nos.20235 to 20238 and 20889 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.15603, 15605, 15615, 15617,
15667, 15669, 15611, 15612, 16164 & 16167 of 2025
26.08.2025
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 09:01:15 pm )
