[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
B&G Hydro Private Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 January, 2026
WA No.61 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.01.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
WA No.61 of 2026
B&G Hydro Private Limited
Rep.by its Authrized Signatory
Having registered office at
New No.25, Old No.10, Sir Madhavan Nair Road
Mahalingapuram, Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 034 : Appellant
versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Secretary, Energy Dept
Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Ltd
144, Anna Salai
NPKRR Maaligai, Chennai 2.
3.PPN Power Generating Company Pvt. Ltd
No.1-A, Jhaver Plaza, Third Floor
Nungambakkam High Road
Nungambakkam, Chennai 34 : Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed against the order of this Court dated 16.12.2025 in
W.P.No.44675 of 2025.
For Appellant : Mr.Abishek Jenasenan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand, A.G.P., for R-1
Page 1 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 06:07:21 pm )
WA No.61 of 2026
Mr.K.Arun Prasad, for the second respondent
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
This appeal arises out of an order dated 16.12.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge, in the matter of challenge to the bidding
process.
2. The writ petition was filed challenging the bidding process
adopted by the respondents. Case of the appellant, as raised in the
writ petition, was that without first undertaking the technical
evaluation process, further bidding process ought not to have been
taken recourse to. It, however, did not find favour and the writ petition
was dismissed. As a subsequent development, during the pendency of
the writ petition, and on the date on which this writ appeal was filed,
the other bidder has walked out of the bidding process, leaving the
appellant as the only bidder. The appellant has already given his offer.
3. However, learned counsel for the appellant would now submit
that in view of the changed circumstances, the respondents be
directed to consider the subsequent developments and the policy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 06:07:21 pm )
conditions, so as to allow the appellant to revise its bid.
4. The issue, as was raised by filing the writ petition, and which
came to be decided by the learned Single Judge, against which this
appeal has been filed, no longer subsists, and is rendered academic.
5. The appellant’s prayer at this stage that the bid which he has
offered should be allowed to be revised, cannot be allowed by this
Court.
6. Challenge made by the appellant in the writ petition was
entirely different. However, the appellant seeks revision of his bid. It is
for him to take remedy as may be available to him under the law.
Leaving the appellant to work out such remedy as may be available to
him under the law, this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as
to costs. Consequently, CMP Nos.650 and 652 of 2026 are closed.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
19.01.2026
Index : Yes/No
tar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 06:07:21 pm )
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(tar)
To
1.The Secretary
Energy Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Ltd
144, Anna Salai
NPKRR Maaligai, Chennai 2.
3.PPN Power Generating Company Pvt. Ltd
No.1-A, Jhaver Plaza, Third Floor
Nungambakkam High Road
Nungambakkam, Chennai 34
19.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 06:07:21 pm )
