Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, K.RAJASEKAR, J
N. Chandran – Appellant
Versus
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tender notification and process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. precedents on judicial review of tenders. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court emphasizes public interest and process adherence in tender evaluations. (Para 6) |
| 4. arguments on the appellant's participation and grievance. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. writ appeal dismissed. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
1. Under assail is the writ order dated 18.03.2025 passed in W.P. No. 8141 of 2025.
2. The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court.
3. The writ petition was instituted challenging the tender notification and consequential direction to issue fresh tender for hiring of the water tanker lorries of 18,000, 12,000, 9,000 and 6,000 litres capacity on contract basis for the period of three years (2024-2027).
4. The issue relating to the subject tender notification is no more res integra, as this Court has already adjudicated the issues and passed orders on 18.02.2025 in W.A. No. 3300 of 2024 filed by Metro Water Tanker Lorry Contractors Association represented by its President. This Court passed the following orders:
"9. The Court not being an expert body cannot place its opinion in the matter of prescription of eligibi
Judicial review in contractual matters requires courts to exercise restraint and intervene only in cases of clear arbitrariness or bias, respecting the expertise of public sector undertakings.
The interpretation of eligibility criteria in public tenders is best determined by the tendering authority, and judicial review is limited to preventing arbitrariness or mala fides.
Point of Law : Tender - Non-completion of contract - Courts would interfere with administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide or actuated by bias. It is entitled t....
Judicial restraint in reviewing tender processes; courts should not substitute administrative decisions unless shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
Courts should exercise restraint in contractual matters, refraining from meddling unless there's clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; unsuccessful bidders cannot later challenge tender conditions they participated under.
The court reaffirmed that judicial review in tender matters is limited to ensuring no arbitrariness or illegality and emphasized the importance of fairness in the bidding process.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to legality and procedural propriety; failure to meet eligibility criteria justifies bid rejection.
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
