[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Megha Engineering And Infrastructures ... vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2026

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

____________
W.P. No.10759/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on Pronounced on
20.04.2026 30.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P. NO. 10759 OF 2026
AND
W.M.P. NOS. 11682 & 11683 OF 2026

Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd.
Rep. By its Authorised Representative
Mr.Ashok Reddy
S-2, Technocrant Industrial Estate
Balangar, Hyderabad
Telengana 500 037. .. Petitioner

- Vs -

1. Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary
Ministry of Municipal Administration,
Urban & Water Supply
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2. Tamil Nadu Urban Infrastructure Financial
Services Ltd. Rep. By its Chairman &
Managing Director, TNIIFSL Towers
2nd Floor, Block H-1, 3rd Avenue
Anna Nagar East, Chennai 600 102.

3. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
& Sewerage Board, rep., by its
Managing Director, Pumping Station Road

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.10759/2026

Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002.

4. VA TECH WABAG Limited
Rep. By its Authorised Signatory
WABAG HOUSE, No.17
200 Feet Thoraipakkam – Pallavaram
Main Road, Sunnambu Kolathur
Chennai 600 117, Tamil Nadu.

5. GKC Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. By its Director
Sy. No.9 (P), CII Green Building Lane
HITEC City, Kondapur, Hyderabad
Telengana, India 500 084.

6. Sri Venkatachalapathy Constructions
Pvt. Ltd. Rep. By its Director
A1, 1A, Plaza Tranquil Acres
200 Feet Road, Kovilambakkam
Chennai 600 129.

7. M/s.Vedha Enterprises
Chinna Metupalayam 2nd Street
No.11, Vedha Enterprises
Thiruvallur 600 019. .. Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the entire records relating to the

Tender No.CNT/WSS/ICB/ADB/001/2025-26 and the BOQ Summary dated

09.03.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same as being arbitrary,

illegal and contrary to the tender conditions.

For Petitioner : Mr. V.Vijay Narayan, SC, for
M/s.Vignesh K

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.10759/2026

For Respondents : Mr. Neeraj Kumar for R-4
Mr. Krishna Ravindran for R-3
Dr. T.Sreenivasan, Spl. GP for R-1
No Appearance for RR-5 to 7

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order in and by which the bid submitted by the 4 th

respondent has been accepted by the 3 rd respondent in relation to the tender

floated for the purpose of undertaking the project ‘Chennai Ring Main Project’,

the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the tender notification

issued, in which the 2nd respondent was to serve as the executing agency and the

3rd respondent was to function as the implementing agency, the petitioner, along

with four other entities participated in the tender process. The petitioner, in

joint venture with JWIL Infra Ltd. (for short ‘JWIL’), the 4 th respondent, in joint

venture with respondents 5 and 6, Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Nagarjuna Construction

Company Ltd. ad Eco Protection Engineers Pvt. Ltd., participated in the bid

process.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 4 th respondent submitted

its bid showing the 7th respondent as their sub-contractor to qualify for one of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

technical eligibility for the purpose of construction of pipe carrying bridges of a

particular length in a single contract for water supply project in urban area. To

establish the said qualification, the 4th respondent had furnished the certificate of

the 7th respondent, viz., its sub contractor dated 31.01.2026, which was alleged

to have been issued by JWIL. By letter dated 10.2.2026, when the 3 rd respondent

called upon the petitioner to clarify the contents of the performance certificate

issued by JWIL to the 7th respondent, JWIL, vide its letter dated 12.02.2026,

denied having issued the said certificate; rather disowned the said certificate by

stating that it was not issued by an authorised person of their company and

further requested the 3rd respondent not to place any reliance on the said

certificate.

4. Further, JWIL also issued show cause notice to the 7 th respondent calling

upon it to desist from using the said certificate and to immediately withdraw the

same and to the said letter dated 12.02.2026, the 7 th respondent, vide its reply

dated 13.02.2026, had admitted that its staff, without the knowledge and

approval of the Management had created and submitted the fabricated

certificate and further admitted that it has not obtained any certificate pertaining

to pipe carrying bridges from any authorised representative of JWIL. On receipt

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

of the said communication from the 7 th respondent, JWIL addressed a detailed

representation to the 3rd respondent bringing to its notice Clause 3 of the

Instructions to Bidders (for short ‘ITB’) which clearly defines ‘fraudulent practice’

committed by the 4th respondent and further submitted that such conduct

constitutes an integrity violation and, therefore, called upon the 3 rd respondent

to take action against the 4th respondent and its joint venture by rejecting its bid.

5. Inspite of the categorical admission made by the 7th respondent that the

certificate produced by the 4th respondent, was fabricated and not issued by

JWIL, the 3rd respondent did not take effective steps to reject the bid and instead

the 3rd respondent issued the BOQ summary. It is the further averment of the

petitioner that the 3rd respondent ought to have disqualified the 4 th respondent

from further participating in the tender as its bid is in clear violation of clause 3.1

(a)(ii) of Volume-I of ITB. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the

reliance placed on the fabricated experience certificate for satisfaction of

eligibility criteria strikes at the very root of the tender process and vitiates the

fairness and transparency in the evaluation process and renders the bid liable for

outright rejection.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

6. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the act of the 3 rd

respondent in not rejecting the bid of the 4 th respondent has seriously prejudiced

the rights and interests of the other bidders, who have participated in the tender

process in a fair and transparent manner. It is the further averment of the

petitioner that the 4th respondent joint venture has been wrongly declared as

technically qualified despite failing to satisfy the mandatory experience

requirement and the 4th respondent has relied upon the experience of one of its

sub contractors, M/s.Madras Switch Gear, which works pertain to works

executed in rural area, whereas the tender in the present case relates to urban

area and, therefore, the eligibility condition itself is not satisfied. Therefore, the

misrepresentation and fraudulent certificate submitted by the 4 th respondent

coupled with the ineligibility of the sub contractors have not been properly

considered by the 3rd respondent, which vitiates the entire evaluation process

aggrieved by which the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that clause

3 provides that a fraudulent practice means any misrepresentation to obtain a

financial benefit. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that

the tender inviting authority shall reject a proposal if the bidder has engaged in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

fraudulent practice and clause 3.1 (d) provides that the tender inviting authority

shall impose remedial actions, including declaring the bidder ineligible.

8. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel, pointing out the

above clauses in the tender document that any fraudulent act of

misrepresentation leading to obtainment of financial benefit would render the

bid invalid. In the present case, the 4 th respondent had filed the document

furnished by the 7th respondent, who is the sub contractor under the 4 th

respondent, with regard to experience certificate purported to have been issued

by JWIL. However, the genuineness of the said certificate has been found to be

false, as even the 7th respondent had accepted that the said document is

fabricated. Such being the case, it is incumbent on the part of the 3 rd respondent

to have rejected the bid submitted by the 4 th respondent. However, the 3 rd

respondent had accepted the bid of the 4 th respondent by reasoning that even if

the document submitted by the sub contractor, viz., the 7 th respondent is

fabricated, yet the other sub contractors, who have been identified and have

joined with the 4th respondent for execution of the work are found to be true and

genuine and, therefore, the document submitted in regard to the 7 th respondent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

will not impede the consideration of the bid of the 4 th respondent is grossly

erroneous.

9. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that there is no

provision in the tender document that provides for condoning the fraudulent

practices of the bidder and the 4th respondent having filed fabricated documents

provided by its sub contractor, viz., the 7th respondent, the 3rd respondent cannot

ignore the fabricated documents and proceed with the other documents and

evaluate the bid. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that fraud

vitiates everything and in the present case, the fabricated documents filed by the

4th respondent cannot be cured and, therefore, the bid of the 4 th respondent

deserves to be set aside.

10. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the

reliance placed upon a fabricated experience certificate to satisfy the eligibility

criteria prescribed in the bid strikes at the root of the tender process and such

conduct vitiates the fairness and transparency of the entire evaluation process

and renders the bid of the joint venture of the 4 th respondent liable to outright

rejection.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

11. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that though

the earlier experience certificate dated 16.5.2025 issued to the 7 th respondent is

genuine, however, the other experience certificate, purported to have been

issued on 31.01.2026 is a fabricated document as it has been accepted and

admitted by the 7th respondent and the said fraudulent document has to be

considered in proper perspective to reject the bid of the 4 th respondent.

12. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that it is well

settled principle of law that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and the present bid,

founded upon fraud is void ab initio, non-est in law and incapable of being cured

or validated by any subsequent conduct. The submission of forged fabricated

document in matter relating to public procurement through tender strikes at the

integrity of the bidder and ridicules the tender process and the same entails

rejection. Further, the fraudulent act relates to eligibility and is not a mere

technical or procedural irregularity, which could be condoned and, therefore, the

act of the 3rd respondent condoning the said act is perverse and unsustainable

and, accordingly, prays for setting aside the order impugned herein.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent submitted

that while submitting the bid before the 3 rd respondent, the 4th respondent had

included the 7th respondent as one of their sub contractors for a particular part of

the technical eligibility and in addition, the 4 th respondent, in its bid had proposed

two sub contractors for the special nature of work, wherein one sub contractor,

M/s.Madras Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd. Qualified for the technical eligibility.

14. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even in the

letter of JWIL dated 12.02.2026, it has been stated that the certificate, which has

been submitted by the 7th respondent, has not been issued by an authorised

person of the company and, therefore, requested not to place reliance on the

same. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that due to the

aforesaid position, the 3rd respondent did not consider the said certificate while

carrying out the technical evaluation of the 4 th respondent and the entire issue

attained a quietus. However, the allegation that the certificate was forged and

amounts to fraudulent practice, as put forth by the petitioner, is grossly

erroneous as the genuineness of the certificate has not been put in issue by JWIL;

rather, JWIL has only stated that the person issuing the certificate was not duly

authorised to issue the said certificate.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

15. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even the show

cause notice of JWIL clearly indicate that the said certificate was issued by JWIL,

but it has not been issued by the authorised person, which is not within the

purview and knowledge of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the claim of the

certificate being fraudulent put forth by the petitioner cannot be countenanced

in view of the show cause notice of JWIL.

16. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even the show

cause notice of JWIL clearly shows that the said certificate submitted by the 7 th

respondent does not correctly and properly represent the work carried out for

the said project, which only shows that the certificate might not have been issued

by a person, who was well versed with the operations of JWIL, which only shows

certain internal issues of JWIL, which are not within the concern of the 3 rd

respondent.

17. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that there is iota of

evidence to show collusion of 4th, 5th and 6th respondents in the fabrication and

submission of false certificate. Therefore, clause 3 of ITB relating to fraudulent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

practice does not stand attracted in the present case. It is the further submission

of the learned counsel that the 4 th respondent’s bid was not qualified based on

the certificate submitted by the 7th respondent; rather it was qualified on the

basis of an experience certificate of another sub contractor, viz., M/s.Madras

Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, there is no infraction or relaxation of any of the

provisions of the tender conditions.

18. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that with a view to

ensure that the work is properly undertaken, the certificate submitted by the 7 th

respondent was not taken into consideration and the experience certificate of

another sub contractor was considered and accepted and there being no

evidence of collusion of respondents 4 to 6 with the 7 th respondent with regard

to fabricating false document, there is no intent on the part of respondents 4 to 6

and, therefore, there arises no need for having any provision in the tender

document relating to relaxation and rightly appreciating all the documents the

bid was held in favour of the 4 th respondent, which does not require any

interference by this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

19. Learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent submitted that the

tender accepting authority, after properly analysing all the documents relating to

technical qualification of the 4th respondent and its joint venture partners had

held the 4th respondent as the successful bidder and had issued the Letter of

Acceptance dated in favour of the 4th respondent.

20. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the writ petition

is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed in limine as the petitioner,

being an unsuccessful bidder, has approached this Court with unclean hands by

suppressing material facts and had only selectively relied upon correspondence,

with the sole objective of stalling a public tender process. Further, it is submitted

that the writ petition is also not maintainable in view of the availability of

alternative efficacious remedy u/s 11 of the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Act,

which should have been invoked by the petitioner and the petitioner ought not to

have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

21. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the scope of

judicial review in tender matters is extremely limited and in the absence of

manifest arbitrariness, mala fides, perversity or violation of essential tender

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

conditions, the evaluation of the tender is purely within the realm of the tender

inviting authority/3rd respondent, who is the expert as the objections raised by

the petitioner have been properly examined in detail by the 3 rd respondent and

negatived.

22. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the issue

relating to the certificate issued by JWIL to the 7 th respondent is purely an

internal matter and in no way constitutes a fraudulent practice as the 4 th

respondent had merely submitted the document produced by the 7 th respondent.

Further, even otherwise, the 4 th respondent has independently satisfied the

eligibility criteria on the basis of other credentials, including those of other sub

contractors and this aspect has been properly appreciated by the 3 rd respondent.

23. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the allegation

of the petitioner relates to internal authorisation within JWIL and it is not with

regard to the execution of work or genuineness of the experience of the 7 th

respondent. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that in respect of

similar work done by the petitioner for Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the

petitioner had engaged the 7th respondent as the sub contractor, whose work

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

was independently verified by the Project Management Consultant of the said

project, wherein JWIL itself had confirmed the genuineness of the experience

certificate issued to the 7th respondent dated 16.5.2025. However, the said fact

has been deliberately suppressed by the petitioner, which shows that the

petitioner has not come to court with clean hands.

24. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that there is a clear

distinction between absence of authorisation to issue letter and absence of

experience. If it is absence of authorisation, it is an internal matter, which cannot

be fastened to the tender process and only the latter concerns the actual

execution capability of the individual. In the present case, the absence of

authorisation has been camouflaged and shown as absence of experience by

fabrication of documents by the petitioner.

25. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that there is not

even an iota of material to suggest that the 4 th respondent along with

respondents 5 and 6 have colluded and fabricated the document, which has been

submitted, so as to mislead the 3 rd respondent. When the 4th respondent had

merely acted on the document furnished by the 7 th respondent, viz., the sub

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

contractor, the 4th respondent cannot be mulcted with the allegation of

fabrication of document. Further, the petitioner has neither pleaded nor

established that the underlying works were not executed by the petitioner and

the 7th respondent and that the experience certificate relied upon is fictitious.

Therefore, the very substratum of the allegation of fraud has not been properly

established by the petitioner.

26. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that in compliance

of the tender conditions, the 4 th respondent had furnished multiple specialised

sub contractors along with their technical credentials of which one M/s.Madras

Switch Gear Ltd., has been selected to be the sub contractor by the 3 rd

respondent, whose credentials has not been disputed by the petitioner.

27. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the 3 rd

respondent has clearly recorded that the 4 th respondent, along with respondents

5 and 6 and M/s.Madras Switch Gear have satisfied the eligibility criteria fixed in

the tender conditions and, therefore, the narrow focus of the petitioner on the

7th respondent is wholly misconceived moreso in view of the fact that there is

only absence of authorisation and not absence of experience.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

28. It is the further submission that there is a clear application of mind by

the 3rd respondent in analysing the bid and also the amounts quoted by the

petitioner which is staggeringly higher than the amount quoted by the 4 th

respondent and recording a finding that the issue raised by JWIL is only with

regard to internal authorisation and does not attract clause 3 of the tender

conditions relating to fraudulent practice and, therefore, the internal dispute

within JWIL cannot form the basis to claim that the 4 th respondent has not

complied with the tender conditions, when the genuineness of the experience

certificate of the 7th respondent was independently verified in another separate

project wherein JWIL had confirmed the genuineness of the experience

certificate and also issued a supporting certificate.

29. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that it is not the case

of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent was unaware of the issue raised by JWIL.

On the contrary, not only the 3rd respondent was fully aware of the

correspondence, but had also independently appreciated the materials and had

rendered a finding that there is no fraudulent practice on the part of the 4 th

respondent and in view of the above stand of the 3rd respondent, the scope of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

judicial review with regard to the act of the 3 rd respondent by this Court is limited

and this Court shall not enter into the evaluation process of the 3 rd respondent,

as no perversity or illegality has been perpetrated by the 3 rd respondent and,

therefore, no interference is warranted in the writ petition and, accordingly,

seeks for dismissal of the present writ petition.

30. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced

by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

31. In Uflex case (supra) the Apex Court has broadly visualised about the

process of tender and the limitations in judicial review in the said process and the

same is quoted hereunder by this Court before embarking upon analysing the

merits and demerits of the contentions put forth by the parties :-

“The enlarged role of the Government in economic activity and its corresponding ability to give economic ‘largesse’ was the bedrock of creating what is commonly called the ‘tender jurisdiction’. The objective was to have greater transparency and the consequent right of an aggrieved party to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Constitution’), beyond the issue of strict enforcement of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

contractual rights under the civil jurisdiction. However, the ground reality today is that almost no tender remains unchallenged. Unsuccessful parties or parties not even participating in the tender seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) jurisdiction is also invoked towards the same objective, an aspect normally deterred by the Court because this causes proxy litigation in purely contractual matters.

2. The judicial review of such contractual matters has its own limitations. It is in this context of judicial review of administrative actions that this Court has opined that it is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fide. The purpose is to check whether the choice of decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice of decision is sound. In evaluating tenders and awarding contracts, the parties are to be governed by principles of commercial prudence. To that extent, principles of equity and natural justice have to stay at a distance.

3. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court and thus, “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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

4. In a sense the Wednesbury principle is imported to the concept, i.e., the decision is so arbitrary and irrational that it can never be that any responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law would have reached such a decision. One other aspect which would always be kept in mind is that the public interest is not affected. In the conspectus of the aforesaid principles, it was observed in Michigan Rubber v. State of Karnatakaas 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 play. These actions are amenable to the 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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of 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 fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.” (Emphasis Supplied)

32. It is evident from the above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, that

fairness in action by the State, non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the

heartbeat of fair play, which are the basic requirements of Article 14 and that

judicial review should not be for whimsical or ulterior purpose so long as the

State’s acts are within the bounds of reasonableness. The Supreme Court had

gone on to tabulate the various factors that govern the tender process and the

yardstick that needs to be adopted and the flexibility that needs to be given to

the State in the discharge of its constitutional obligations by resorting to fair play

and showing bona fide intent. Therefore, this court has to analyse the facts and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

provisions of the tender in the present case on the touchstone of the ratio laid

down in the aforestated decision.

33. In the case of Tata Cellular – Vs – Union of India (1994 (6) SCC 651),

the Supreme Court has elucidated the following principles :-

“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 speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

(including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.

(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.” (Emphasis Supplied)

34. Yet again, the Supreme Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors – Vs –

Union of India & Anr. (2020 (16) SCC 489) has succinctly pointed out that the

Court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its

requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal.

Authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender

documents is the best Judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If

two interpretations are possible, then the interpretation of the author must be

accepted and the Courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality,

bias, mala fides or perversity.

35. In the teeth of the ratio laid down on the question of appreciation and

interference by the Courts in matters relating to contracts/tenders, it is clear that

the Courts should be very much circumspect, while interfering in the tender

process, as it is a qualitative analysis to be made by experts in the particular field.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

Suffice for the Court to see that no unreasonableness, arbitrariness, bias or mala

fides has crept in, in the tender process. The Supreme Court has also cautioned

that the awarding of contracts by the Government and the Public Sector should

not be made a cumbersome exercise in a long drawn out litigative battle.

36. The crux of the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner to

strike at the award of tender in favour of the 4 th respondent is that the 7th

respondent, who is shown as the sub contractor, has provided an experience

certificate, purported to have been issued by JWIL, which is a fabricated

document and applying Clause 3 of ITB which speaks of fraudulent practice, the

bid of the 4th respondent and its joint venture partners ought to have been

rejected.

37. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to refer to

Clause 3.1 (a)(ii) of the Tender Document which specifies the act, which would be

deemed to be fraudulent practice and for better appreciation, the said clause is

quoted hereunder :-

“3.1 (a)(ii) “fraudulent practice” means any act or omission, including a misrepresentation that knowingly or

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

recklessly misleads or attempts to mislead a party to obtain a financial or other benefit or to avoid an obligation.”

38. From the above, any act, which is done knowingly or recklessly or is

misrepresented to mislead so as to obtain a financial or other benefit or to avoid

an obligation would fall within the ambit of “fraudulent practice”. Further Clause

3.1 (b) mandates the tender inviting authority to reject the proposal of a bidder,

if it has engaged in fraudulent practice.

39. In the present case, the 7 th respondent has been shown as one of the

sub contractors under the 4th respondent joint venture along with 5 th and 6th

respondents. At the time of submission of the bid, the 7 th respondent had

provided the certificate, which has been uploaded by the 4 th respondent. When

the said document was sought to be verified by the 3 rd respondent vide its

communication dated 10.02.2026, JWIL had given the following reply vide its

letter dated 12.02.2026, which, being crucial to determine the contention

relating to fraudulent practice, is quoted hereunder :-

“1. This is win reference to your communication dated 10.02.2026 seeking clarification regarding the certificate purportedly issued by JWIL Infra Ltd. In favour of M/s.Vedha Enterprises, which has been submitted by M/s.Vedha

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

Enterprises as part of the bid submission of Wabag-GKC-SVCL JV.

2. With reference to and in response to your letter dated 10.02.2026, we state that the said certificate provided by M/s.Vedha Enterprises has not been issued by an authorized person of JWIL Infra Ltd.

3. We are distancing ourselves from the said certificate as the same is not issued by an authorized person of JWIL Infra Ltd. And we have no knowledge of issuance of the said certificate.

4. In view of the above, you are humbly requested not to place any reliance on the said certificate.

5. We hope this clarified the factual position regarding the said certificate. Should you require any further clarification, we remain available.”

40. Through the aforesaid letter, JWIL has clearly informed that the said

certificate has not been issued by a person authorized to issue certificates on

behalf of JWIL. However, it is to be pointed out that there is conspicuous

absence with regard to the work which has been done by the 7 th respondent,

which forms part of the certificate, which is alleged to have been issued by JWIL

and which has been submitted as part of the bid.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

41. Therefore, it is imperatively clear that the certificate has been

submitted by the 7th respondent as part of the bid process, but the said certificate

has not been issued by an authorized signatory of JWIL. However, there is no

whisper about the fact that the 4th respondent was aware about the genuineness

of the certificate provided by the 7 th respondent for the purpose of annexing it

along with the bid.

42. In the aforesaid backdrop, if Clause 3.1 (a)(ii), which deals with

fraudulent practice is looked at, it clearly spells out that the fraudulent practice

should be an act of omission including a misrepresentation that knowingly or

recklessly misleads or attempts to mislead a party to obtain a financial or other

benefit or to avoid an obligation. The above clause makes it clear that first of all,

the falsity/fabricated nature of the document should be within the knowledge of

the person submitting the bid and that such document should have been used

either to misrepresent/mislead for the purpose of obtaining a financial or other

benefit or to avoid an obligation.

43. In the present case, the document has been provided to the 4 th

respondent by the 7th respondent for the purpose of annexing it with the bid. It is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

not the case of the petitioner that the 4 th respondent with clear knowledge about

the falsity/fabricated nature of the document had submitted the bid for obtaining

any gain/leverage. Therefore, the application of clause 3.1 (a)(ii) would not stand

attracted as it is neither on the ground of misrepresentation for obtaining any

gain nor it is with clear knowledge about the falsity/fabricated nature of the

document.

44. It is further to be pointed out that JWIL has clearly addressed the 3 rd

respondent in which the document has not been stated to be fabricated; rather,

it is to be noted that JWIL had only stated that the document has not been issued

by a person, who is authorized in this behalf. Therefore, the document has not

been stated to be a fabricated document by JWIL and JWIL had only stated that

the document has not been issued by a person authorized to issue the same.

45. Only if it is established that the document submitted by a bidder is

fabricated and that the same was within the knowledge of the bidder, then

clause 3.1 (a)(ii) would stand attracted. However, in the present case, neither

there is any claim that the 4 th respondent had knowledge about the false nature

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

of the document nor was the document stated to be a fabricated document by

JWIL.

46. Further, it is to be noted from the communication of JWIL that

nowhere it is claimed that the document is fabricated or false. What JWIL claims

is that the said document has not been issued by the person, who is authorized

to issue the said document. The disowning of the said document by JWIL is only

to the limited extent of it not having been issued by the person authorized. Such

being the case, holding the document to be fabricated/false would not be just

and proper and the 3rd respondent, rightly interpreting the said clause in the

tender document had come to the conclusion that no fraudulent practice had

been perpetrated by the 4th respondent. Therefore, the contention of the

petitioner that the 3rd respondent ought to have rejected the bid of the 4 th

respondent on the aforesaid ground is wholly misconceived and the same does

not deserve acceptance and deserves to be rejected.

47. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that the 3 rd respondent has

no power under the tender document to ignore the document, which is claimed

to be fabricated, as stated above, the document is not claimed by JWIL to be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

fabricated, but only it is stated by JWIL that it has not been issued by a person,

who is authorized to issue it. Such being the case, the 3 rd respondent has rightly

appreciated the communication of JWIL and had ignored the said document

while considering the bid of the 4 th respondent by adopting that insofar as the

said document is concerned, it is an internal issue of JWIL.

48. As held by the Apex Court in Uflex case (supra) in public contracts

greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities and unless the

action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its

statutory powers, interference by Courts is not warranted. Further as held by the

Apex Court in Tata Cellular case (supra), so long as the decision reached by the

authority on the basis of evaluation of the bids is not perverse or arbitrary, Courts

shall not ordinarily desist from interfering with the said decision under the guise

of judicial review. In the present case, this Court does not find any perversity or

arbitrariness in the evaluation process as the 3 rd respondent has properly

evaluated the materials and, therefore, the said evaluation does not require any

interference.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

49. Further, it is to be noted that the 3 rd respondent has not adverted to

the document submitted by the 7th respondent, but had approved the bid in

favour of the 4th respondent JV with 5th and 6th respondent and with M/s.Madras

Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd. and one other entity as the sub contractors. The sub

contractors, according to the 3rd respondent, have duly qualified themselves and

are entitled to do the work, as necessary experience certificates have been

submitted by them. Applying the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in

Silppi Constructions case (supra), it is the Authority which floats the contract or

tender, and has authored the tender documents which is the best Judge on how

to interpret the documents and if two interpretations are possible, then the

interpretation of the author must be accepted. In the present case, the bid along

with the annexed documents have been appreciated by the 3 rd respondent and

the 3rd respondent has come to the conclusion that no fraudulent practice had

been perpetrated by the 4th respondent. Such being the case, in the absence of

arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity, this Court is bound to

accept the interpretation of the author.

50. Further, the 3rd respondent had applied its mind and granted the

tender to the 4th respondent JV along with two sub contractors, who have

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

fulfilled the relevant experience criteria and such being the case, this Court

cannot enter into the domain of the 3 rd respondent when the action of the 3 rd

respondent does not show any semblance of arbitrariness, perversity or illegality.

Therefore, the contention advanced by the petitioner deserves to be rejected.

51. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition fails and the same is

dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There

shall be no order as to costs.
                                                                                       30.04.2026
                     Index         : Yes / No
                     GLN









https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                          ____________





                     To

                     1. The Secretary
                        Ministry of Municipal Administration
                        Urban & Water Supply
                        Government of Tamil Nadu
                        Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

                     2. The Chairman & Managing Director
                        Tamil Nadu Urban Infrastructure Financial
                        Services Ltd., TNIIFSL Towers
                        2nd Floor, Block H-1, 3rd Avenue
                        Anna Nagar East, Chennai 600 102.

                     3. The Managing Director
                        Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
                        & Sewerage Board
                        Pumping Station Road
                        Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002.









https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                   ____________




                                        M.DHANDAPANI, J.

                                                      GLN




                                  PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
                                  W.P. NO. 10759 OF 2026




                                     Pronounced on
                                       30.04.2026








https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis