Madras High Court
Thiruvallur District Goods Transport – ... vs The Managing Director on 22 October, 2025
W.P.No.30697 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22 .10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.No.30697 of 2025 &
WMP.No.34437 of 2025
Thiruvallur District Goods Transport – Service
Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd.,
No.6-D, DIC Building, II Main Road,
Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 058,
Represented by Former President,
Mr.R.Gnanasekaran
S/o.M.K.Raman ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.,
No.3A, Aavin Illam,
Pasumpon Muthuramalinganar Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
2.The Joint Managing Director,
The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.,
No.3A, Aavin Illam,
Pasumpon Muthuramalinganar Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
3.The Administrator,
Tamilnadu Anna MGR Goods Transport
Service Industrial Co-Operative Society Ltd.,
No.13/66, Pulavar Pugazhendhi Nagar,
4th Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.
4.The Administrator,
Chennai Goods Transport Owner's
Service Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd.,
No.700, Kumpath Complex,
P.H.Road, Aminjikarai,
Page 1 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
W.P.No.30697 of 2025
Chennai – 600 029.
5.V.Rajkumar
6.B.Venkatesan
7.B.Ramesh
8.R.Moorthy
9.P.Ganapathi
10.T.Manikandan
11.S.Devarajan
12.T.Ayyarappa
13.Neelambari Lorry Transport,
Plot No.26, Jeshwanth Nagar,
West Mogappair, Chennai – 600 037.
14.Moses Agency,
No.372, Astalakshmi Nagar,
Alapakkam, Porur, Tiruvallur – 600 116. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the online tender No.2192/P23/MKG/2024 and its connected
corrigendum dated 30.06.2025, on the file of the 1st and 2nd respondents
and thereby quash the same and consequently, direct the 1 st and 2nd
respondents to call for fresh tender as per the original tender conditions.
For Petitioner :Mr.A.Natarajan, Senior Counsel,
for Ms.A.Madhumathi
For Respondents
1&2 :Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General,
Assisted by
Mr.I.John Arockia doss
For Respondent 3 :Mr.Kishore Balasubramaniam
Page 2 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
W.P.No.30697 of 2025
For Respondent 4 :Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner is a registered Cooperative Society. It has been
functioning from 22.03.1993. Of its several objects, the main one being to
assist the business of its members, who let out their vehicles on hire to
transport the goods belonging to the Government, Quasi Governmental
bodies, Corporate entities and Private Concerns.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 issued a notice inviting tender on
19.06.2025. The purpose of the tender was to hire insulated vehicles for
milk distribution. The period of contract being two years, with a provision
for extension by an additional six months. The tender notification fixed the
last date for submission of bid as 07.07.2025 at 3.00 pm. The technical bids
were scheduled to be opened on 24.07.2025. The last date for submission of
bids was extended through a corrigendum issued on 30.06.2025, extending
the last date for submission to 23.07.2025.
3. The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Federation Limited (hereinafter
referred to as TCMPF) follows a two-Bid system. The total number of vehicles
that the TCMPF required was 143 of 2 MT, 5MT and 8MT capacities for
sachet milk distribution. The vehicles have to be provided with driver and
loadmen. The loadmen had to collect milk sachets from dairies located at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
Madhavaram, Ambattur and Sholinganallur, and distribute the same to
various outlets situated in and around the city of Chennai and its sub urban
areas. The empty tubs, post supply, had to be returned to TCMPF. The value
of the contract was set at Rs.49.29 crores. The petitioner and the
respondents 3 to 14 have participated in the tender. Out of 143 routes for
which tender had been called for, insofar as seven routes are concerned,
there were no bids.
4. On 24.07.2025, the technical bids were opened. The tenderers or
their representatives were present. Form C, as per the tender, was read out
by the officials of TCMPF with particulars including the names of the
tenderer, member names, route numbers, vehicle registration numbers and
other relevant details. The petitioner found several irregularities in the same
upon verifying the Form C. The list of irregularities, according to the
petitioner, are as follows:
(i) A bid stands in the name of C.H.Kishore. The bid is for five routes.
The RC book details have been furnished. However, the said Kishore is no
more as he had passed away on 15.07.2025.
(ii) It is a condition of tender under clause 3.2, that the vehicles
should not only be a road worthy, but its age must be less than 12 years on
the date of publication of the first notice inviting tender in the newspaper.
The age of the vehicle is calculated from the date of its first registration as
an insulated vehicle. The petitioner notes that a substantial number of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
vehicles offered by the third respondent are more than 12 years and hence,
this violates clause 3.2.
(iii) Though the tender is for insulated vehicles, one car bearing
registration No.TN01-BL-7387 had been offered for route No.1. In addition, a
tanker bearing registration No.TN18-AK-8402 had been offered for route
No.108. The RC Book for the said tanker stands in the name of one
Mr.K.Gandhi. It is asserted that such vehicles cannot be offered for the
tender.
(iv) It is mandatory that FSSAI certification should be produced for the
vehicles. However, several vehicles that have been offered do not have this
mandatory certification.
(v) In the pre-bid meeting, the officials of TCMPF had informed that
the technical evaluation results will be published online to ensure
transparency, but even though the tender was opened on 31.07.2025, till
today, the same has not been uploaded.
5. Finding the irregularities shocking, the petitioner had sent a
representation on 30.07.2025 to the first and second respondents calling
upon the General Manager (Marketing) of TCMPF to look into these
discrepancies and violations, and take immediate action. Based on the
representation, TCMPF had sent E-mails to the vehicle owners calling for
document verification relating to the vehicles submitted for bidding. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
petitioner additionally pleads that neither the committee, nor the first and
second respondents have so far conducted any physical inspection of the
vehicles, in order to verify engine and chasis number, age of the vehicle and
its road worthiness.
6. The petitioner further urges that in the tender schedule,
modifications were made from the earlier tender, in terms of vehicles
capacity, route distance, etc. On account of fall in pre-paid card sales of the
TCMPF, tonnage capacity has been reduced to 5 Metric Tons from 8 Metric
Tons. As per the tender norms and condition, the vehicle contractor has to
engage a driver, a cleaner and a casual labourer, if the capacity of the
vehicle is 8 MT, whereas in the case of 5 Metric Ton vehicle, one driver and
one casual labourer alone would be sufficient.
7. Pointing out to the fall in sales, the petitioner urges that the first
respondent had issued an undated corrigendum increasing the tonnage of
the vehicles with respect to the same routes, when the same is absolutely
unnecessary, considering the fall in card sales. After the first corrigendum,
another corrigendum was issued in which the date of the bid submission
was extended. Immediately the petitioner gave a representation on
07.07.2025 and 14.07.2025, pointing out the unreasonable, uneconomical
and arbitrary changes made through the corrigendum regarding the tonnage
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
of the vehicles. Though the petitioner had been assured of action, but since
nothing had transpired so far, they are before this court by way of this writ
petition.
8. This court entertained the writ petition and granted an interim
order restraining further proceedings on 18.08.2025, pursuant to the online
tender and the corrigendum released thereafter. The respondents were
called upon to file their counter.
9. The second respondent has filed a counter. In the said counter, the
second respondent has alleged that the deponent has no locus standi to
represent the writ petitioner. This is because the deponent, Gnanasekaran,
is the former President of the writ petitioner and not the current President.
It was further pointed out that the writ petition does not disclose as to
whether Gnanasekaran had participated in the tender process in his
personal capacity or whether it was the writ petitioner Society, which had
participated in the process. Pleading that unless and until this aspect is
clear, the respondents urged that this court must not have entertained the
writ petition at the instance of the writ petitioner. Without prejudice to this
contention, the second respondent states that it was decided to opt for
larger tonnage of vehicles, from 5 Metric Ton to 8 Metric Ton, as TCMPF
anticipates a raise in demand for milk orders. TCMPF decided that such
increase will avoid bottlenecks in future.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
10. The counter of the second respondent further states that the
tender conditions were revised and modified, based on the requests made by
the prospective tenderers during the pre-bid meeting held on 24.06.2025. It
was only after the corrigendum was published on 25.06.2025, that the
petitioner had applied for participating in the tender and had uploaded the
tender documents. This implies that the petitioner had accepted the revised
conditions, including the change in vehicle capacity.
11. The second respondent states that the representations of the
petitioner dated 07.07.2025 and 14.07.2025 were not submitted on those
dates. It was only after the tender was opened on 24.07.2025, they were
received on 04.08.2025. Hence, the second respondent states that the
intention of the petitioner is to mislead and misrepresent the facts and also
confuse the Tender Scrutiny Committee. It pleaded that the existing tender
arrangement has already reached the end of its permissible extended period,
and cannot be continued further, as it would come within the teeth of the
Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Act, 1998 and the Rules made thereunder.
It pleaded that as finalisation of new tender is essential to ensure continuity
and an uninterrupted supply of milk to the residents of Chennai Metro, any
delay in the tender process would cause serious inconvenience to the
general public.
12. Insofar as the allegations of irregularities that are contained in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
affidavit are concerned, a point by point rebuttal was given by the second
respondent in the following manner:
(i) The factum of death of C.H.Kishore was admitted. However, the
second respondent pointed out that the wife of late Mr.Kishore had stated
that she will take full responsibility towards the obligations of the tender
and requested the committee to consider the bid made by her late husband
through the third respondent Society. This was also supported by the third
respondent Society's letters.
(ii) With respect to the age of vehicles, the second respondent stated
that in case a vehicle of more than 12 years is presented for the tender, it
will be rejected during the technical scrutiny.
(iii) With respect to the plea that a car has been offered for route No.1,
it was pointed out that the vehicle bearing registration No.TN01-BL-7387
was never offered by any tenderer. In addition, with respect to the Tanker
vehicle bearing registration No.TN18-AK-8402, clarification will be called for
from the concerned tenderer and in case, it is found not conforming to the
tender conditions, it will be rejected.
(iv) Insofar as FSSAI certificate is concerned, the counter states that
most of the tenderers have already furnished the certification. With regard to
the tenderers who had not submitted the same are concerned, the
respondents sought to invoke Rule 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in
Tenders Rules 2000, after giving sufficient opportunity to the tenderers to
submit the shortfall documents within the permitted time. Only upon
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
satisfactory submission, such bids were sought to be considered.
(v) With respect to the allegations that the technical evaluation result
had not been uploaded, the counter states that the technical bid was opened
on 24.08.2025 and all the details had been read aloud publicly in the
presence of participants to ensure transparency. It pleaded that the
document verification is under progress and the process being followed is
strictly in accordance with the tender conditions.
(vi) Insofar as the objection that had been made by the petitioner
regarding the insulated vehicles etc. are concerned, it was pleaded that the
vehicle verification is not necessary at the technical stage and that, after the
award of the contract, the physical verification of the vehicles would be
undertaken.
(vii) It pointed out that the increase in tonnage capacity from 5 Metric
Ton to 8 Metric Ton was not with any malafide intention, but was done,
keeping in mind the anticipated increase in milk quantity to be transported
in the near future. It asserted that whatever be the tonnage of vehicle, either
5 Metric Ton or 8 Metric Ton, two labourers are required, and by using a 8
Metric Ton Vehicle, multiple trips using a 5 Metric Ton vehicle could be
avoided. It pleaded that the arrangement was for operational efficiency,
better route management, and results in reduction of repeated deployment
of vehicles. It added that it is proposed to supply curd and other fermented
products through the tender vehicles, in addition to milk sachets and
therefore, the requirement of 8 Metric Ton vehicle as sought for by it is valid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
(viii) It pointed out that no deviation or violation has been created, and
the entire tender process is being managed by the Tender Scrutiny
Committee. It stated that the corrigendum has been issued to align the
route distance and vehicle tonnage with the actual requirement, and they
are modified based on the representations received during the pre-bid
meeting.
13. The counter of the second respondent states that all was done in
the interest of the public and not with any malafide intention. It asserted
that no individual contractor has been favoured and the tender process had
been done transparently through official portal accessible to all tenderers. It
further stated that only substantial responsive bids in accordance with the
tender conditions will be considered giving equal opportunity to all
concerned parties, without any arbitrariness, malafide or bias in the
process. On the basis of these pleadings, it sought to vacate or modify the
interim order and also to dismiss the writ petition.
14. The third respondent also filed a counter. It adopted the plea of
the second respondent that the deponent, Mr.Gnanasekaran is not entitled
to represent the writ petitioner. It pleaded that it had submitted its bid on
23.07.2025 for 74 out of 143 routes. It accepted that C.H.Kishore had
passed away on 15.07.2025, but pointed out that the bid submitted by late
Mr.Kishore was not in his personal capacity, but through the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
respondent Society. The Society came to know of the death of Mr.Kishore
only through his son, Mr.Cherukuri Narasimha Rao, who had informed the
third respondent on 06.08.2025 that Mr.Kishore is no more. Immediately
acting on this intimation, the third respondent Society informed the second
respondent that till the legal heirs of the deceased Kishore obtain a mutation
in their favour in the RC book, the Society will manage the vehicles for the
said route.
15. The counter of the third respondent supported the second
respondent by stating that the age of the vehicle, and its consequent
disqualification can be decided by the Tender Scrutiny Committee, only at
the stage of finalisation of technical bid. On the date of filing of the writ
petition, the preliminary bids alone had been opened, and the details were
still under scrutiny. It found fault with the writ petitioner for having rushed
to the court with a non-existing cause of action assuming that the bids had
passed the technical bid stage, when that was not the case.
16. The third respondent also accepted the variation in the tonnage
from 5 Metric Ton to 8 Metric Tons as being an obvious consequence of the
requests made by various tenderers in the pre-bid meeting held on
24.06.2025. It pointed out that tenderers and the representatives of the
bidders were present in the said meeting and no objections were raised on
the said date. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to raise such an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
objection in this writ petition, when no such objection was flagged before the
authorities. It pleaded estoppel against the writ petitioner. It pointed out
that accepting the terms and conditions, the writ petitioner submitted its bid
in the third week of July 2025. Therefore, it cannot now turn around and
challenge the tender notification on the ground that the terms mentioned
therein are arbitrary.
17. The counter further states that the prescription of specifications
and conditions are solely within the domain of the tender inviting authority
viz., the first respondent and unless and until the same is arbitrary or
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, a challenge to them is untenable.
It urged that the tender submitted by the writ petitioner itself is liable to be
rejected as the petitioner had not enclosed a certificate from the registering
authority, or a self declaration that the vehicle is an insulated vehicle in
terms of clause 11.0 of the tender condition. The counter of the third
respondent stated that Form A, B and C have to be duly filled up with all
particulars and uploaded. However, Form C pertaining to the vehicles of the
petitioner had been left incomplete, and the details like 'bidder name”, 'total
number of route vehicles offered' were all left blank.
18. Another deficiency in the writ petitioner's tender was also pointed
out. In terms of clause 27(m) of the tender notification, xeror copies of the
registered documents duly certified by the Notary Public should have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
enclosed along with the tender. However, the documents had not been so
notarised. Hence, the writ petitioner's bid itself is liable to be rejected
invoking clause 27(n) of the tender notification. In conclusion, it pointed out
that the writ petitioner has submitted its bid under another tender bearing
No.1895/P2/MKG/2025 issued by the first respondent on 19.06.2025 for
procurement of 65 numbers of insulated vehicles for evening supply on the
same terms and conditions, but the petitioner had not challenged the tender
dated 19.06.2025. Hence, it sought for dismissal of the writ petition with
cost.
Submissions of the Counsel
19. Learned Advocate General submitted that the technical bids have
not yet been processed, and even before it could be completed and the
details uploaded, the petitioner had rushed to the court and obtained an
interim order preventing any further process. He pleaded that the technical
bids have not been processed, though opened. He assured the court that the
objections raised by the petitioner and any other objections as to
irregularities that have been received, will be considered and orders will be
passed, accordingly. Taking into consideration the submission made by the
learned Advocate General, I modified the interim order dated 18.08.2025,
vide an order dated 04.09.2025 which reads as follows:
“(i) the second respondent shall process the technical bid
and decide as to which of the tenderers are qualified.
(ii) during the said process, the second respondent shall
consider the objections given by the petitioner on 30.07.2025 or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
any other objections that they might have received.
(iii) till a call is taken on the list of eligible persons, the
commercial bid shall not be opened.”
20. When the matter was called on 22.09.2025, the learned counsel
for the respondents 1 and 2 filed a status report as directed in the order
dated 04.09.2025. Mr.A.Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, after receipt of a copy, sought time to peruse the same. Hence, I
listed the matter on 24.09.2025.
21. On 24.09.2025, Mr.A.Natarajan submitted as follows:
(i) Regarding the locus standi of the writ petitioner, he produced a
resolution of the writ petitioner Society dated 30.07.2025, authorising the
deponent to take appropriate steps with respect to the tender. Hence, he
pleaded that Mr.Gnanasekaran is entitled to file affidavit on behalf of the
writ petitioner Society.
(ii) Mr.A.Natarajan pointed out that the purpose of the tender was to
engage 143 insulated vehicles, along with driver and loadman for collection
of milk sachets from the diaries, disburse the same to the various identified
outlets in Chennai and the Sub-Urban areas, and to return the empty tubs.
He stated that such tender cannot be converted into one for transportation
of curd and other fermented products, and on that basis, seek to modify the
requirements.
(iii) He urged that the corrigendum had been issued in order to help
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
some third parties. In other words, the plea being the corrigendum had been
issued in order to tailor-make the tender to suit certain pre-identified
persons.
(iv) There were totally 143 routes, of which for seven routes, there are
no bidders. Insofar as five routes are concerned, the vehicles offered for
tender are more than 12 years. He states, that leaves out 131 routes and for
these routes, the tender conditions have to be strictly adhered to.
(v) Drawing the attention of this court to Rule 11(2) of the Tamilnadu
Transparency in Tenders Rules, he stated that since the tender value
exceeds Rs.5 crores, it ought to have been published in the newspapers. He
pointed out that the corrigendum had been inserted only in the website and
therefore, it does not comply with the requirements of the Rules. For this
proposition, he relied upon the judgment of this court in P.Ravishankar v.
State of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department and other in
MANU/TN/8408/2021.
(vi) He produced a photocopy of the vehicle bearing registration
No.TN18-AE-8082, and stated that the vehicle offered is not an insulated
vehicle and therefore, should not be accepted.
22. Mr.Kishore Balasubramanian appearing for the third respondent
submitted that the tender conditions from clause 11.2 to 11.6, read with 2.4
are mandatory in nature. He stated that several tenderers had not enclosed
the details required under the tender conditions, and the only option
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
available to TCMPF is to reject their tenders. Instead of doing so, TCMPF
had attempted to rectify the same by resorting to Rule 27(4) of the Tamil
Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. He stated that even assuming
Rule 27(4) is applicable to the case and that TCMPF had sought for
clarification from everyone, it is only a make-believe clarification in order to
show as if all the tenderers were treated similarly.
23. Referring to his typed set, on pages 78 and 79, he pointed out that
though all the documents of the third respondent were already available
with the first respondent, it had unnecessarily uploaded the details on the
E-Procurement portal of the Government of Tamil Nadu as if certain
documents had not been submitted. He pointed out that a clarification had
been sought for with respect to Route No.48, when the third respondent had
not even applied for the said route in the tender. He stated that the
documents, which have been sought for, are crucial documents and they
ought to have been uploaded at the time of submission of tenders and in
case, they had not been done so, TCMPF cannot give further opportunity by
permitting a tenderer to rectify the same. Therefore, he prayed appropriate
directions be given in the writ petition.
24. Learned Advocate General in response stated as follows:
(i) The petition is a premature one. TCMPF is yet to conduct a physical
verification of the vehicles offered for the tender. Even before an order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
disqualification has been passed, the petitioner has approached this Court.
In other words, the authorities are yet to take a call and therefore, the writ
petition is premature.
(ii)As the evaluation is still pending before the Tender Scrutiny
Committee, approaching the court by way of a writ petition should be
discouraged. He refers to Section 10(7) of the Transparency of Tenders Act
and states that once the scrutiny of the technical bid and commercial bid
are completed, the tender accepting authority will intimate the same to the
Tender Bulletin Officer, who will immediately upload the same. While doing
so, the Tender Accepting Committee will also give reasons for rejection of the
other tenders. When the statute has provided for such a procedure,
approaching the court at a premature stage causes hindrance in finalising
the tender, especially one issued for distribution of milk, which is of vital
importance to the general public. In support of this submissions, he relies
upon the judgment in National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v.
Montecarlo Limited and Another, (2022) 6 SCC 401. He points out that
the conduct of the petitioner is such that it is not entitled to the equitable
relief sought for in the writ petition.
(iv) After reiterating the lack of locus standi of the petitioner to file the
writ petition, when the petitioner society is managed by an Administrator, he
states that till an order of rejection is passed, the petitioner cannot be
treated as an “aggrieved person”. As a supplement submission to the same,
he pleads that an anticipatory writ petition is untenable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
(v) On the plea that the corrigendum has not been published in the
newspapers, he relies upon Rule 17 of the 2000 Rules to point out that 17(1)
enables the Tender Inviting Authority to make changes, modifications or
amendments to the tender document by way of a corrigendum, and that the
corrigendum needs to be informed only to those, who had purchased the
original tender documents and to those who had downloaded the tender
documents from the website. As Rule 17 states so, he pleads that section
11, while it applies to notice inviting tenders, will not apply to the
corrigendum. He points out that in P.Ravishankar's case, the attention of
the learned Judge had not been invited to Rule 17 at all.
(vi) He adds that it is inherent in every tender inviting authority to get
clarification from the tenderers, and this procedure has been followed in the
present case. He states that the supply of documents though found
mandatory by reading the tender conditions, a careful perusal of Rule 27(4)
would show that where a bonafide doubt arises, it is open to the tender
inviting authority to get clarification from the tenderers.
(vii) He factually adds that the persons, who have offered vehicles for
routes under the tender, are mostly existing contractors and their details are
already available with TCMPF. For mere non-uploading of the documents,
when the applications are otherwise in order, he urges that their tenders
must not be rejected. This is because the tender relates to a public service,
and more the competition, more the benefits to TCMPF and thereby, to the
general public.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
(viii) He states that being a transportation contract, this court should
not read the clause as if the tender relates to services or products of highly
technical and scientific in nature. Relying on clause 4.1(vii), he states that
the original documents have to be submitted to the TCMPF only at the time
of technical evaluation and hence, non-uploading of the documents should
not result in rejection of the tender. In other words, his plea is that clause
11 of the tender should not be strictly construed as an “essential term” of
the contract.
(ix) On the plea of Mr.Natarajan that on account of the fall in card
sales, the requirements of TCMPF is satisfied with 5 Metric Ton vehicles and
there is no necessity for 8 Metric Ton vehicles, the learned Advocate General
states that the prescription of specifications, conditions, and requirements is
solely within the domain of TCMPF. He states that the requirements of
TCMPF cannot be interfered with in a writ petition.
(x) In addition, he states that the petitioner is not prejudiced on
account of the corrigendum or the increase of capacity requirement from 5
MT to 8 MT as the petitioner has applied for 8 Metric Ton routes and has
participated in the tender, after issuance of the corrigendum. Hence, he
pleads that the writ petition may be dismissed.
25. By way of a reply, Mr.Kishore Balasubramanian submitted that
clauses 2.4, 3.4 and 11 are essential conditions and it cannot be weighed
otherwise. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation and others v. Anoj
Kumar Agarwala and Others, (2020) 17 SCC 577.
26. I heard Mr.A.Natarajan, assisted by Ms.A.Madhumathi, for the
petitioner, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.I.John
Arockiadoss for the respondents 1 & 2, Mr.Kishore Balasubramaniam for
the third respondent and Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Additional
Government Pleader for the fourth respondent. I have gone through the
records. I have applied my minds to the facts of the case and the appropriate
laws applicable.
27. There are certain fundamentals which I have to take note of. The
tender inviting authority issued an invitation to offer. In response to the
same, applications were made to the authorities for the purpose of
acceptance. It is only on the acceptance of the offer so made can the
contract be concluded and thereafter, the issuance of work order and the
work commences. By development of law, it has become a requirement that
wide publicity should be given to tenders. The purpose of wide publicity is to
enable as many eligible persons to participate and make their applications
before the tender inviting authority. [See, Meerut Development Authority
Vs. Association of Management Studies, (2009) 6 SCC 171 (paragraph
Nos.26 to 28)]
28. The idea of publication is to increase participation, which might
result in better quality of service and healthy competition among those, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
submit their applications and thereby, resulting in better management, both
financially and technically to the tender inviting authority. Keeping this
requirement in mind, the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act has been
enacted.
29. Under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules,
the tender inviting authority should ensure that the notice inviting tender is
published in daily newspapers. If the value of procurement of goods and
services is above 5 crores, then publication should be made in any one
English daily in its all India Edition, and in one Tamil daily in all editions in
the State. This is by virtue of Rule 11(2) read with clause 1 of the annexure
to the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules.
30. The value of the tender that I am now dealing with is above five
crores. Notice inviting tender has been published in one English daily, as
well as in one Tamil daily. This complies with the requirement of section
11(2). It is admitted by both sides that a corrigendum was issued by TCMPF
on 30.06.2025. It is also admitted that the said corrigendum was not
published in the newspapers. It is on this point that the judgment of
P.Ravishankar's case is relied upon by Mr.A.Natarajan. In that case too,
the financial limit of the tender was above five crores. The notice inviting
tender was published in “The New Indian Express”, having circulation in
South India, and in the Tamil daily, “Dinamalar”. The corrigendum-6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
revising the date of submission of the bids and the date of opening of the
same were not published in the newspaper. The learned Judge concluded
that this amounts to an infraction of Rule 11(2) of the Rules.
31. A perusal of Rule 17 shows that the tender inviting authority is
entitled to make changes, modifications or amendments to the tender
documents. Such changes to the original tender document are made
through a corrigendum. Rule 17(1) clearly states that if any corrigendum is
issued, then an intimation of such change shall be sent to all those, who
have purchased the original tender document and the tender inviting
authority has to upload the same for the information for those who have
downloaded the tender documents from their website.
32. Rule 11(2) specifically states that "Notice inviting tenders have to
be published in daily newspapers". It does not speak about the corrigendum
to be published in the daily newspaper. A reading of the judgment in
P.Ravishankar's case shows that the statutory Rule 17, framed in exercise
of the powers under section 22(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 43 of 1998, had not
been invited to the attention of the learned Judge. When the Rules
contemplate a particular procedure, any deviation from the same is
impermissible. Similarly, the courts in exercise of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, unless the circumstances so warrant, are not entitled
to supplant the statutory rules so framed by way of directions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
33. I am of the view that had Rule 17 been brought to the notice of the
learned Judge, he would not have come to the conclusion that he did in para
19.2 of the judgment. As the Rules enable the tender inviting authority to
intimate only those who have purchased the tender physically, and to
upload the corrigendum for the information of those who have downloaded
from the website, I am not in a position to accept the submission of
Mr.A.Natarajan that failure to effect publication of the corrigendum in terms
of Rule 11(2) vitiates impugned tender.
34. Putting this crucial point behind, I now move to the clauses of the
tender conditions. Here too, I have to point out that the writ petitioner and
the third respondent, who has behaved like Janus supporting both the
petitioner as well as the TCMPF, have participated in the tender. So have the
respondents 4 to 14. These persons, having participated in the tender,
cannot turn around and plead that the very tender and the connected
corrigendum have to be quashed.
35. As pointed out above, the tender is only an invitation to offer. It is
always open to the tender inviting authority to cancel the tender, if it so
pleases, at any stage before its acceptance. Till it is accepted, the tender is
in an inchoate condition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
36. Nevertheless, it is a settled principle that the terms of invitation to
a tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, for the same falls in the realm of
contract. The courts shall always remain hesitant to interfere with the
administrative policy decision and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala
fide, or actuated with bias, will the courts interfere. (See, Ion Exchange
Waterleau Ltd. v. Commr., 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 315 and Tata
Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651).
37. The petitioner, having participated in the tender by submitting its
offer for several routes, cannot turn around today and plead that the
notification of tender itself is bad, unless and until it is able to demonstrate
that the notification is contrary to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 43 of
1998, and the rules made thereunder are arbitrary, capricious and thereby,
in teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
38. TCMPF is controlled by the State of Tamil Nadu. It is not a
standalone cooperative society. The State of Tamil Nadu has a deep and
pervasive financial and administrative control over the said entity. That
being the position, TCMPF has to strictly comply with the requirements of
law. It is always open to this court to test the action taken by TCMPF and
find out whether its act passes the constitutional muster. Being an “other
authority” covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, TCMPF has
to strictly comply with the terms, Act, Rules and constitutional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
requirements.
39. Having said this, I have to note that the writ petition seeks to
quash the tender notification. The tender itself has been called in order to
engage 143 insulated vehicles together with persons to serve in the said
vehicles for collection & distribution of milk sachets from dairies belonging
to TCMPF, to various identified outlets in Chennai and its Sub Urban areas,
and to return the empty tubs and containers. This is a requirement of
TCMPF. It is not for this court to state whether TCMPF should perform the
act by itself or outsource the same by way of a tender. It is not for the Court
to usurp the discretion of a public authority, or be pedantic when it is
scrutinizing every decision taken by them. The tender inviting authority is
clothed with the liberty to assess the overall situation keeping in mind the
purpose of the tender. (See, Sterling Computers Vs. M/s.M&N
Publication, AIR 1996 SC 51)
40.If this court were to grant relief that the petitioner seeks for, it
would amount to interfering with the power and functions of an
Administrative Authority as to how it wants to exercise its powers and
perform its duties. It is not for this court to run an institution in exercise of
the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is only when the
action of the executive does not pass the requirements of Constitution,
Statute or Rules, this court should interfere. Even at that stage, this court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
sets aside the proceedings and directs the concerned authority to re-do the
exercise in accordance with law. As pointed out above, this court cannot
quash the tender circular, when it is merely prescribing the requirements of
that authority. Even though the prayer is for quashing the tender
notification, this court retains with itself the power or any other reilef. This
power is available, even to a civil court under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of
Civil Procedure and it is certainly available to a writ court, the jurisdiction of
which is plenary in nature.
41. Insofar as the locus standi of the petitioner is concerned, it is
accepted by Mr.A.Natarajan that the deponent is only a former president of
the writ petitioner society. Bye-laws of the society might, as pointed out by
the learned Advocate General, empower the administrator to sue or be sued.
In a writ proceedings, the strict principles of pleadings do not apply. This is
clear from a casual reading of section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
42. The fact that the deponent had been authorised to file this writ
petition is not in dispute. The further fact that the deponent had been
authorised by a resolution of the society is also not in dispute. The
authorisation itself has been signed by the administrator of the society and
also by the District Registrar of Industrial Cooperative Societies, District
Industries Centre, Tiruvallur. This shows that the general body of the writ
petitioner, as well as the administrator, have authorised the writ petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
to present the writ petition. The circumstances on the basis of which
authorisation had been granted is not for this court to investigate, when the
administrator has not challenged the locus standi of the deponent. Hence,
the plea of learned Advocate General that the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed in limine is not acceptable.
43. Insofar as the plea of learned Advocate General, that there is an
effective alternate remedy for the petitioner to file an appeal under section
11 of the Act as and when an order is passed under section 10(7) is
concerned, this court has to point out that no statute can interfere with the
power of this court to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. An alternate remedy is not a total bar but only a rule of convenience.
If this court is satisfied that the manner in which the proceedings have been
carried out by the State is not in accordance with the requirements
stipulated by law, the rule of convenience pales into insignificance, and this
court has a discretion to interfere with writ.
44. Furthermore, an appeal under section 11 is maintainable only
after an order is passed by the tender accepting authority. From the facts, it
is clear that the petitioner had, in fact, approached the TCMPF to rectify the
alleged mistakes committed during the course of evaluation and only upon
that not having been considered by the respondent authorities, it resorted to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
approach this court. When a statute fixes a particular manner in
entertaining an appeal, that procedure has to be strictly adhered to. When
no order has been passed by the authority, despite the fact that it had been
brought to the notice of the said authority, then the petitioner is always free
to approach this court by way of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
45. Furthermore, it has been the practice of this Court that where
Rule Nisi is issued, the litigant should not be turned away on the ground of
alternate remedy. A perusal of the papers show that my predecessor had
entertained the writ petition on 18.08.2025, had issued Rule Nisi, and had
called for the records. This court recollects a latin maxim 'cursus curiae est
lex curiae' – 'the practice of the court is the law of the court'. This dictum
has been accepted by the Constitutional Courts, including the Supreme
Court. It has been directed that unless and until circumstances warrant, the
practice of the court should be followed. This is because certainty is one of
the essential ingredients of the law. Therefore, the plea that the petitioner
should have filed an alternate remedy under section 11(1) stands rejected.
46. I will now refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court, which was
relied upon by the learned Advocate General in National High Speed Rail
Corporation Limited's case. A careful perusal of the judgment shows the
Supreme Court did not hold that a writ petition challenging the tender
process is not maintainable. The Supreme Court pointed out that the High
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
Court is entitled to entertain the petitions challenging the tender matters.
While entertaining such writ petitions, the court should be of the view that
the decision of a process impugned is perverse or arbitrary or suffers from
malafides or favourtism. If such circumstances exist, then the High Court
should grant an interim order. The Supreme Court also pointed out that if
the writ petition was held to be maintainable, it should caution the writ
petitioner that if the writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner loses
causing delay to the tender proceedings, then the petitioner may be saddled
with damages for having caused delay in the execution of the project, which
may be due to frivolous litigation initiated by it. After having stated so, the
Supreme Court pointed out that the High Courts must be conscious while
interfering with the tender process, and with respect to contracts/projects
funded by foreign countries, and with respect to mega projects. It further
pointed out that there is an ocean of difference between foreign funded
contracts and ordinary public works contracts. This is clear from the
following lines in paragraph 45:
“... there shall be different considerations so far as the
judicial interference is concerned between the foreign funded
contracts and the ordinary public works contracts funded from
public exchequer.”
47. A reading of paragraph 45 and 48 makes it clear that the High
Court, even in cases of mega projects and foreign funded works, can
entertain writ petitions but must do so with caution. This judgment is not a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
proposition that a writ petition is not maintainable, if the process attracts
vices of arbitrariness, malafides or favourtism etc, and if the tender is an
ordinary works contract.
48. On the merits of the case, Mr.A.Natarajan had urged that the
original tender contemplates 85 trucks of 5 Metric Ton and 52 trucks of 8
Metric Ton. The petitioner submitted that with the fall in business of card
sales, the increase of 8 Metric Ton from 52 to 81, and the reduction of 5
Metric Ton from 85 to 55, is arbitrary. I will agree with the submissions of
the learned Advocate General and that of Mr.Kishore Balasubramanian.
What is the requirement of a tender inviting authority is not for this Court
to dictate. That is solely based on policy and considerations in the minds of
the tender inviting authority.
49. Perhaps, TCMPF had initially decided that 85 - 5 Metric Ton and
52 – 8 Metric Ton would satisfy its requirements. Subsequently, TCMPF
considered a revision. Unless and until the requirement, so sought for, is
made to suit one particular person or entity, it is not for this court to
interfere with the same. The requirements of the tender is for that authority
to decide and it is not for this court to substitute the wisdom of the
authority, and insist that the authority should stick to its original proposal.
This is more so, when in terms of Rule 17, the tender inviting authority is
entitled to make any changes, modifications or amendments to the tender
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
documents from the time of issuance of the tender till the opening of the
tender. The rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has started.
In matters of tender, the game commences only after the opening of the
tender. Till then, the tenderers do not have a right to insist that the
conditions cannot be changed. In any event, the prescription of
requirements, specifications and conditions are solely within the domain of
TCMPF.
50. With respect to the plea that the bid which was given in the name
of a dead person, namely, C.H.Kishore should not be considered for
technical evaluation is concerned, the factum that a bid had been applied
by C.H.Kishore is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he had passed
away. C.H.Kishore had not applied as an individual. He had applied as a
member of the third respondent Society. The explanation offered by TCMPF,
that the third respondent Society has assured to discharge their tender
obligations until the legal heirs of C.H.Kishore transfer the RC book in their
name, in the event an award is granted in their favour, cannot be
considered as unreasonable or arbitrary. Time of death can be predicted by
none. Hence, the latin maxim 'memento mori'.
51. The court cannot be insensitive to a situation as presented in the
case of C.H.Kishore. He had validly presented a bid and was thereafter,
summoned to meet his maker. It is not as if the bid was made in the name
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
of a dead person, but it is rather a situation where the person, who had
made the bid, is now dead. The bid has been offered through the third
respondent Society. If it complies with the undertaking that it has given to
TCMPF, then TCMPF would not be prejudiced. The execution of work was
not something personal to C.H.Kishore. He was the owner of the vehicles
and had offered them through the third respondent Society. Therefore, the
plea of Mr.A.Natarajan that as the bidder is no more, it deserves rejection,
cannot be considered.
52. With respect to the plea that the vehicles, which are above the age
of 12 years had been presented for operation is concerned, the learned
Advocate General has categorically stated that at the stage of technical
evaluation, TCMPF goes as per the records. If as per the records, under
clause 3.2 of the Tender terms and conditions, in particular, the vehicles are
more than 12 years old, obviously TCMPF will not consider them.
53. Furthermore, learned Advocate General has also made a
statement that the physical verification will not be conducted after the
contract is awarded but before the award of the contract. His submission is
TCMPF will physically verify the vehicles offered for the contract and if it
complies with the requirements of TCMPF, as stipulated in the terms and
conditions of tender, only then the contract be awarded. This substantially
takes care of the grievance expressed by the writ petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
54. With respect to the objection that a car had been presented in a
route, it is not in dipsute that no vehicle bearing registration No.TN01-BL-
7387 had been offered. It is but a typographical error. The correct vehicle
number is TN01-BL-7887. On account of the typographical error, the
petitioner seems to have been under an apprehension that it was a car,
which has been offered for the route. This being a factual mistake, it need
not be dealt with further.
55. With respect to the objection on FSSAI certification not being
produced for several number of vehicles, the statement of the learned
Advocate General that the certification will be verified before the award of
the contract, is also recorded. Since TCMPF is dealing with food articles,
especially those, which would lose their value in case not properly stored,
TCMPF shall ensure that the FSSAI certification is produced before the
award of the contract.
56. Now I will consider the plea of Mr.Kishore Balasubramanian, that
clauses 2.4, 3.4 and 11 are mandatory. I should point out that I am dealing
with a handling and transportation contract. As rightly contended by the
learned Advocate General, the tender does not relate to any high, scientific
or technological process. The persons who are indulging in the
transportation process, perhaps are not tech-savvy. Anticipating such a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
failure, clause 4.1(vii) directs the tenderers to produce the original
documents of the vehicle in full shape at the time of technical evaluation.
57. In the light of clause 4.1(vii) permitting the tenderers to produce
the original documents at the time of technical evaluation, I am not inclined
to hold that the failure to upload the documents, especially considering the
nature of the contract, is fatal. Life of law, as is oft repeated, is not logic but
experience. TCMPF has vast experience in dealing with transportation
contracts. It would have certainly faced the situation of tenderers not
uploading the documents, though they are in possession of the same.
Perhaps, it is only on account of such experience, they have inserted clause
4.1(vii), which enables a tenderer to upload Form A, B and C, to furnish the
documents in original at a later date. In case a tenderer does not produce a
document listed in clause 11, as insisted upon under clause 4.1(vii),
obviously TCMPF is going to reject the tender and will not award the
contract.
58. While I have my own doubts on the interpretation that the learned
Advocate General sought to place on Rule 27 of the Rules, I do not think it
is necessary to go into the said issue in this case. This is because, the stage
of the tender. When TCMPF is still considering the technical evaluation, if
TCMPF, on physical verification of the vehicle and the documents, comes to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
a conclusion that the offered vehicles do not comply with their requirements
as set forth in the terms and conditions of the tender, they would and
obviously should reject the offer.
59. There is time enough for the petitioner to challenge, in case its
offer is rejected, on grounds, which are arbitrary or contrary to the Act or if
a vehicle offered does not comply with the requirements, but is still awarded
the contract. This court cannot act like a soothsayer and predict what is the
course of action that TCMPF is going to take.
60. Suffice it to record the statement of the learned Advocate General
that the physical verification of documents and vehicles will be conducted
during the technical evaluation, and vehicles, which do not satisfy the
requirements of tender clause 11, and other requirements like insulation
etc., will be rejected.
61. In the light of above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. The
first and second respondents shall strictly comply with the statement of the
learned Advocate General recorded in this order and complete the tender
process. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
22.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
nl
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
To
1.The Managing Director,
The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.,
No.3A, Aavin Illam,
Pasumpon Muthuramalinganar Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
2.The Joint Managing Director,
The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.,
No.3A, Aavin Illam,
Pasumpon Muthuramalinganar Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
3.The Administrator,
Tamilnadu Anna MGR Goods Transport
Service Industrial Co-Operative Society Ltd.,
No.13/66, Pulavar Pugazhendhi Nagar,
4th Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.
4.The Administrator,
Chennai Goods Transport Owner's
Service Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
No.700, Kumpath Complex, P.H.Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029.
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN. J,
nl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
22.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
