The judgment establishes the importance of meeting essential conditions in a tender process and emphasizes the significance of complying with prescribed formats in tender documents.

JUDGMENT :

G. Ilangovan, J.

1. The Writ Appeal has been directed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 22.01.2021 made in W.P.(MD) No. 18639 of 2020.

2. The facts of the case narrated in the writ petition are that the first respondent/Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD), issued a Tender Notification, dated 06.11.2020 inviting tender for carrying out the work of 'Rejuvenation and improvements of existing Combined Water Supply Scheme to Andipatti - Sedapatti in Madurai and Theni District'. The appellant as well as the fourth respondent herein participated in the tender process. Even at the technical bid stage, the appellant was disqualified. The communication, dated 09.12.2020 was also sent, which is impugned in the writ petition. In that tender process, the fourth respondent herein, was awarded with the contract. So, challenging the same, the appellant has filed the impugned writ petition before the Writ Court and by the order, dated 22.01.2021, the writ petition was dismissed by holding that the appellant has not satisfied the tender conditions and so, disqualification has been rightly passed by the authorities. The contention raised by the writ Appellant before the Writ Court is that the fourth respondent herein is also not qualified to take part in the tender process and the authorities ought to have disqualified him also and instead, for extraneous reasons, the contract was awarded to him. Those contentions were rejected by the Writ Court mainly on the ground that he failed to enclose Annx viii, as set out in the conditions of tender. Challenging the correctness of the said order, this writ appeal has been preferred.

3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

4. The law, on the point of judicial interference into the executive action, more particularly, with regard to contract through tenders is well settled. Particularly, in the case of TATA Cellular Vs. Union of India wherein, it has been pointed out among other things, the guide line No. 2 reads as follows:-

"The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal, but, merely reviews the manner, in which, the decision was made"

The appellant wants to quash the tender process on this ground.

5. For better appreciation of the dispute involved, the chronological events can be summarised as follows:-

The notification of the official respondent, inviting tender is dated 29.10.2020 and last date for submission of the bid was 03.00 p.m. on 03.12.2020. On 09.12.2020, the technical bids were evaluated at 05.00 p.m. and the result was uploaded on 11.12.2020 in the official web site. The appellant was informed of his disqualification. On 14.12.2020, the price bid was opened by the authorities the fourth respondent herein, was awarded with the contract.

6. According to the appellant, he submitted his tender application on 02.12.2020 and paid security amount. He annexed the documents, which were required to be filed. So, among the documents, which were alleged to have been enclosed along with the tender application, the dispute is only with regard to credit line certificates from the financial institutions.

7. When the bid was opened at 03.30 p.m. on 03.12.2020, he was informed that original affidavit was not furnished and so, he submitted the same on 4.12.2020. At about 04.30 p.m., on 11.12.2020, he was informed that he was rejected during technical evaluation stating that the form submitted by the appellant has not satisfied the financial qualification criteria and the non-submission of original affidavit regarding the correctness of information furnished.

8. According to the learned Senior counsel for the fourth respondent, the award of contract to the fourth respondent was not challenged by the appellant. Moreover, conditions stipulated in 24.5 and 24.6 were not complied by the appellant. Even as per the information, the appellant undertook to produce the require document and so, there is no infirmity disqualifying the ap