In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders of rejection passed by the respondent, rejecting the tender application submitted by them through on-line (e-tender). The learned senior counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent have advanced common arguments in all these writ petitions. Therefore, by their consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2. The averments made in the affidavits filed in support of WP Nos. 32287 and 32288 of 2016 are as follows:-

(i) It is contended by the petitioner company that they are Class I registered contractor with the Tamil Nadu Government. According to the petitioner, they have undertaken several contractual work with the Government of Tamil Nadu and they have acquired rich experience in executing government contracts. On 29.06.2016, the respondent has issued a tender notification for construction of 1036 numbers of PC/HC quarters with development works at Cochin House in Chennai and the value of the tender was Rs.13,679.46 lakhs. In the very same tender notification, applications were also invited for construction of 596 numbers of PC/HC quarters at Pudupet with development works for Armed Reserve Police in Chennai and the value of the tender was indicated as Rs.8,132.67 lakhs. As per the tender notification dated 29.06.2016, the tender forms will be opened on 28.07.2016. In response, the petitioner company has submitted their tender applications. According to the petitioner, for the first project work, totally 5 tenderers have participated and for the second project work, four tenderers have submitted their application forms, including the petitioner company. As per the tender notification, the tenders received by the tenderers will be evaluated at two stages namely technical evaluation and financial evaluation.

(ii) According to the petitioner, as per the conditions of the tender notification, the petitioner company has successfully uploaded the e-tender for both the works and satisfied all the requirements made in the tender notification. On 28.07.2016, the technical bids have been opened by the respondent. When the petitioner was eagerly waiting for the result of the technical bids, to their shock and surprise, they received an e-mail dated 30.08.2016 at 19.24 hours and 19.28 hours respectively wherein it was stated that their bids have been rejected during technical evaluation on 30.08.2016 at the pre-qualification stage. According to the petitioner, the order dated 30.08.2016 was sent by e-mail after a month even though the technical bids have been opened by the respondent on 28.07.2016. According to the petitioner, in the orders of rejection, the respondent has not assigned any reason, whatsoever, for rejecting the tenders except by merely stating that their tender application forms have been rejected during technical evaluation. Immediately, the petitioner sent an e-mail on 30.08.2016 at 20.54 hours seeking reasons for rejection, however, there was no response received from the respondent. The petitioner therefore sent a letter dated 31.08.2016 reiterating their request to assign the reasons for rejection of the tenders submitted by them. Inspite of the letter dated 31.08.2016 of the petitioner company, the respondent did not assign reasons for rejection. The respondent also did not call upon the petitioner company to seek any clarification before passing the orders of rejection. While so, on 01.09.2016, the respondent opened the financial bid hastily with a view to award the contract in favour of other bidders. Thereafter, by an e-mail dated 08.09.2016, enclosing an order dated 02.09.2016, the respondent has informed the petitioner in the first paragraph that they need not assign reasons for rejecting the tender application submitted by the petitioner. However, it was stated in the