JUDGMENT :

SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

1. The State is in appeal against an order of March 6, 2019 by which the entire work relating to the de-silting of the Sathyamoorthy Sagar Reservoir, Poondi in Tiruvallur taluk and district has been stalled.

2. The appellants contend that there were four grounds which were raised by the writ petitioner, the respondent herein, that weighed with the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioner questioned the propriety of the tender process on the ground that no advertisement pertaining thereto was published in the trade journal in accordance with the requirement of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the 2000 Rules framed thereunder. The writ petitioner had also complained of the shortness of time given to receive bids. The writ petitioner had pointed out that the tender documents ought to have been made available free of cost, but a fee of Rs. 500/- per set was levied. The writ petitioner had also referred to an order of the National Green Tribunal to the effect that such a project would require environmental clearance, but it was not evident from the tender documents or elsewhere that any environmental clearance was obtained by the State before inviting offers to undertake the work.

3. As to the advertisement to be published in the trade journal in terms of Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, the appellants point out that the publication has been made mandatory in cases where the value of the procurement exceeds Rs. 74 crore. It is the appellants' case that nothing was to be procured in respect of the relevant project and there really was no project cost. According to the appellants, a minimum base price was indicated which would have to be paid by the contractor to remove every cubic metre of silt from the reservoir.

4. On the issue of time, the appellants say that rules permit the time to be abridged in case of urgency. It is contended that the price fixed for obtaining the tender papers was not in violation of any statutory provision. Finally, the appellants claim that it was notified by the Union Environment Ministry that no environmental clearance was necessary for the purpose of de-silting at any lake or reservoir. For good measure, it is submitted that though an order of the National Green Tribunal required the Union to re-consider the issue, subsequent to such re-consideration, the Union has maintained the same stand. However, the matter pertaining to the re-consideration of the issue by the Union and the Union maintaining its original position was not a part of the appellants' submission before the Writ Court.

5. The appellants say that for any tender process to be arrested, the Court must find mala fides in the process or patent arbitrary action on the part of the State employer or the entire procedure being opposed to public interest. According to the appellants, no case on any of such counts was made out by the respondent herein. The appellants say that it was open to the respondent to participate in the process and it would not do for a prospective tenderer to approach the Court after the process has been completed to complain of illegalities when such person did not participate in the process. The appellants also point out that this was not a public interest litigation that the respondent herein had carried to this Court. The respondent was personally aggrieved and brought the writ petition so that the original tender process was scuttled and the writ petitioner had a chance to participate in the next.

6. On behalf of the writ petitioner, it is submitted that the major plank of the writ petitioner's case was that the writ petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to make an offer or participate in the tender process. Paragraph 12 of the petition is placed where it was squarely alleged that even though the writ petitioner accessed the relevant website, the tender forms and papers could not be downloaded and there was no mechanism made available on t