[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Sasi Road Finishers And Engineering vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 March, 2026

                                                                                            W.A.No.715 of 2026

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED:          13.03.2026

                                                          CORAM :

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
                                               CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                   AND
                                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

                                              WA No.715 of 2026
                                       and CMP No.7220 and 7218 of 2026

                     Sasi Road Finishers and Engineering
                      Contractors
                     Rep. By its Managing Partner,
                     B. Sangeeth Kumar,
                     No.39/1, 1st Cross, Nedumaran Nagar,
                     Dharmapuri - 636 701.

                                                                                      Appellant(s)

                                                               Vs

                     1. The State of Tamil Nadu
                        Rep. by its Joint Director/Project Director,
                        District Rural Development Agency,
                        Dharmapuri - 636 705.

                     2. M.S.Chinnakannu and Co
                        Rep. by its Managing Partner, S.Selvam,
                        Pappambadi, Chinnappampatty (Post),
                        Omalur Taluk, Salem - 636 306.

                                                                                      Respondent(s)




                     ______________
                     Page 1 of 10




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 01:31:45 pm )
                                                                                           W.A.No.715 of 2026

                     PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the
                     order in Writ Petition No.5126 of 2026, dated 25.2.2026, on the file of
                     this Court and allow this writ appeal and thus render justice


                                  For Appellant(s):      Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel
                                                         For Mr.A.S.Aswin Prasanna

                                  For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Kumaresan
                                                     Additional Advocate General
                                                     Assisted By Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath
                                                     Government Advocate
                                                     For R1

                                                         Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam
                                                         Senior Counsel
                                                         For Mr.I.Gokulraj
                                                         For R2

                                                         JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Questioning the correctness of the order dated 25.2.2026

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5126 of 2026, the

unsuccessful writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal.

2.1. The facts in a nutshell are that the first respondent had

floated a tender for formation of the road from Barigam to Malaiyur

Road in Nallampalli Block of Dharmapuri District. The appellant firm,

claiming to be one of the registered and eligible contractors, ______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 01:31:45 pm )

submitted and uploaded the tender document as per procedure laid

down in the tender notice along with all the required documents as

stipulated by the first respondent on 30,10.2025, The first

respondent perused all the documents submitted by the appellant

and found the appellant eligible.

2.2. It is stated that the second respondent, who also

participated in the tender process, was initially disqualified on

24.11.2025, but was later on admitted as qualified bidder on

6.2.2026. It is further stated that the tender portal, on 8.2.2026,

updated the status enabling the second respondent to participate in

the financial bidding without any rhyme or reason.

2.3. Seeking quashment of the aforesaid order dated 8.2.2026

and a consequential direction to the first respondent to award

contract to the eligible and lowest bidder as on 24.11.2025, the writ

petition was filed.

2.4. The learned Single Judge, after threadbare analysis of the

factual matrix and the submissions advanced by learned counsel on ______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 01:31:45 pm )

either side, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 25.2.2026.

Hence, the present writ appeal.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant

submitted that once the second respondent was disqualified on

24.11.2025 for non-compliance of Clause 11.3 of the tender

conditions, the tender inviting authority has no jurisdiction to

reconsider the tender submitted by the second respondent and,

therefore, the tender process reeks of mala fide.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing

on behalf of the first respondent, drawing support from the order

passed by the learned Single Judge, submitted that the omission on

the part of the second respondent in submitting the original affidavit

within the prescribed time was curable, non-prejudicial and

procedural in nature. In any event, he added that the difference

between the rate quoted by the second respondent, who was

awarded the contract, and the present appellant is Rs.26 lakhs.

______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 01:31:45 pm )

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second

respondent submitted that pursuant to the rejection of the technical

bid on the ground that original affidavit was not filed as

contemplated under Clause 11.3 of the e-tender document, the

petitioner raised a complaint in terms of Clause 21.6 of the e-tender

document and thereafter filed W.P.No.46732 of 2025, wherein a

learned Single Judge of this court, on prima facie case having been

made out by the second respondent, granted interim stay. He

hastened to add that on 6.2.2026 the said writ petition was

withdrawn and the first respondent issued letter of acceptance in

favour of the second respondent and the work has already

commenced.

6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and

perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. The learned Single Judge, as is evident from the order

impugned, has called for the entire original file and upon due

consideration came to the conclusion that there is neither any

violation in the tender process nor arbitrary extension of time. ______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 01:31:45 pm )

Besides that, it is also observed that there is no mala fide

attributable to the first respondent in awarding contract in favour of

the second respondent. It was also noted that in the absence of

any arbitrariness or mala fide, for every error or unsavory action

during the process of tender, the court need not interfere, as the

larger public interest of laying road in the remote village should be

the primordial consideration.

8. In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa1, the Supreme Court,

after discussing a catena of earlier judgments, laid down two tests

to determine the extent of judicial interference in tender matters

and observed as under:

“22. … (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;

or

Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say:‘the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached;’

(ii) Whether public interest is affected.

1(2007) 14 SCC 517 ______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 01:31:45 pm )

If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.”

9. In the case on hand, the learned Single Judge, on perusal

of the original records, rendered a categorical finding that there is

no arbitrariness or mala fide in the tender process and laying of

road would be in the larger public interest of the villagers.

10. The scope of a letters patent appeal has been

expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Baddula

Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple2, thus:

“A Letters Patent Appeal, as permitted under the Letters Patent, is normally an intra-court appeal whereunder the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of a subordinate Court.”

2(1996) 3 SCC 52 ______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 01:31:45 pm )

11. In the light of the law enunciated in the decision, referred

supra, it is apparent that in an intra-court appeal, a Division Bench

of the High Court may only see the correctness of the order passed

by the learned Single Judge, as the intra-court appeal is exercised

in the same jurisdiction as exercised by Single Judge.

12. We do not find any error in the order passed by the

learned Single Judge warranting interference by this court.

In such view of the matter, the writ appeal is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim

applications stand closed.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 13.03.2026 Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes sasi

______________