Judicial intervention in tender processes is limited to preventing arbitrariness; courts prioritize public interest over individual grievances when evaluating tender acceptance decisions.

ORDER :

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the work order issued in favour of the seventh respondent pursuant to a tender notification dated 07.11.2025.

(A).Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner are as follows:

2. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, a tender was floated by the fourth respondent for construction of Chief Minister Mini Stadium at Thirumayam Assembly Constituency at Segeerai in Sengeerai Panchayat, Arimalam Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District. The petitioner as well as the seventh respondent have submitted their tender bids along with two other contractors. The technical bids were opened on 13.11.2025. The price bid though had to be opened on 18.11.2025, it was opened only on 24.11.2025. The work order has been issued on 25.11.2025, which is under challenge.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had further submitted that after the technical bid was opened, questioning the credentials of the seventh respondent herein, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner company on 14.11.2025 through registered post. The same was received only on 17.11.2015 by the Tender Accepting Authority. Thereafter, without considering the objection or passing any orders, the present impugned work order has been issued in favour of the seventh respondent.

4. According to the learned senior counsel, the chartered accountant certificate submitted by the seventh respondent which is dated 19.05.2024 reflects zero turnover for the previous year 2024-2025. Therefore, it clearly indicates that no work was executed in one of the preceding five years and thereby disqualifying the bidder from participating as per the tender conditions.

5. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that the tender condition requires mandatory proof of ownership or lease of the specified construction equipment. However, the documents filed on the side of the seventh respondent would clearly reveal that they have already sold away the vehicle and they have produced a fake registration certificate as if it continues to remain in their name. In view of the said forged document, the technical bid of the seventh respondent ought to have been rejected.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had further submitted that the seventh respondent firm was incorporated only in the year 2022, but they have submitted the documents dated 09.12.2020 in support of its tender application. Therefore, the documents are misleading and they clearly amounts to fabrication of documents and constitutes a serious violation of the tender condition which warrants criminal action.

7. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that the seventh respondent has produced fabricated invoices solely for the purpose of tender qualification. The submission of fabricated documents amount to criminal offence and therefore, the technical bid of the seventh respondent ought to have been rejected. He had further submitted that GST registration of the seventh respondent was suspended on 27.11.2025 and therefore, the firm was not legally eligible to issue valid GST invoices or undertake taxable supplies. The possession of an active GST registration is a mandatory statutory requirement for tender eligibility and precondition for submission of the bids. Concealment of the suspension amounts to material misrepresentation.

8. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that the tender documents were submitted in the name of 'Sree Amman Logistics' whereas the five years financial statements enclosed along with the tender docu