Back
G. R. SWAMINATHAN
Meenakshisundaram Kumararaja Proprietor of Galaxy Enterprises, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
The Superintending Engineer, Highways Department, Madurai – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer in WP (MD)No.4531 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in Tender ID No.2024- HWAY-419796-1 dated 20.02.2024 and quash the same.
In WP (MD)No.4532 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in Tender ID No.2024-HWAY-419896-1 dated 20.02.2024 and quash the same.
1. The writ petitioner is a Class – I contractor registered with Tamil Nadu Highways Department. The first respondent issued two tender notifications on 19.01.2024 inviting tenders for providing Roller Crash Barriers in State Highways in Kodaikanal (H) C&M Sub Divisions (MDU-177&187). The last date for bid submission was 19.02.2024 up to 03.00 P.M. The petitioner applied in response thereto. On 20.02.2024, technical evaluation was conducted. The petitioner's tenders were rejected on the ground that hard copies of the uploaded documents were not submitted. On 21.02.2024, the tender processes were finalised. The third respondent herein turned out to b
The conflicting requirement for physical submission in a tender process was deemed unenforceable, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory rules in tender processes.
Point of law: petitioner has no locus standi in the first place to challenge the tender notifications, as admittedly he has not chosen to submit his bid in response to the notification. No doubt, it ....
Tender authorities must adhere to statutory criteria and act transparently; courts will not interfere unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or malafide conduct is presented.
The court emphasized that strict compliance with tender conditions is essential and that arbitrary qualification despite disqualifications undermines the fairness required in the contracting process.
Technical bid non-responsive for missing mandatory physical affidavit; no evaluation or appeal period applies; limited judicial interference in tenders.
The court upheld the tendering authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria, emphasizing limited judicial review focused on procedural fairness rather than the merits of the decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
