Failure to submit mandatory documents leads to rejection of technical bids as non-responsive, with no grounds for procedural violation.

ORDER :

1. These seven writ petitions have been filed by a Class-1A contractor challenging the rejection of technical bid dated 11.10.2025 with regard to seven packages.

(A) Factual Matrix:

2. The first respondent in the writ petitions had invited E-bid for construction of 132 houses for Sri Lankan Refugees at Azhiyanilai Refugees Camp in Aranthangi Panchayat Union for 2025-2026 under two cover system for seven packages. The notification was issued on 19.09.2025. The last date for online submission of tender was fixed on 03.10.2025 at 3.00 p.m. The date and time for opening of the online tender was fixed at 5.00 p.m. on 03.10.2025.

3. The petitioner company had submitted their tender for all the seven packages. The tender bids were opened on 03.10.2025. After evaluation, the technical bids of the writ petitioner for all the seven packages were rejected under seven separate impugned orders on 11.10.2025. These orders are under challenge in the present writ petitions.

4. The tender summary report dated 11.10.2025 is attacked as the impugned order. A perusal of the said order reveals that apart from the petitioner, two others have also submitted their tender for all the seven packages. The technical bid of the other two bidders has been accepted. The price bid of the fifth respondent has been accepted on 11.10.2025.

5. A perusal of the orders impugned in the writ petition reveals that the technical bid submitted by the writ petitioner has been rejected. No reasons have been assigned in the tender summary report which is impugned in all the seven writ petitions.

(B) Submissions of the counsels appearing on either side are as follows:

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon Clause 20.5 and 20.6 of the tender document and submitted that as soon as the technical bid (Part-I) is opened, it shall be made public and the tender inviting authority should wait for a period of five working days during which any bidder may submit complaint. The said complaint has to be resolved before opening of the price bid (Part-II). However, in the present case, the evaluation of technical bid made only on 11.10.2025 and on the same day, the price bid was opened without waiting for the complaint relating to rejection.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon Clause 23.2 of the tender document and submitted that a tender document can be rejected only if there is a material deviation or reservation which would affect the scope, quality or performance of the works or which limits in any substantial way, inconsistent with the bidding documents, the employer's rights or the bidder's obligations under the contract or which rectification would affect unfairly the competitive position of other bidders who have presented substantially responsive bids. Therefore, the rejection of the technical bid of the writ petitioner without assigning any reason whatsoever is clearly in violation of Clause 23.2.

8. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the officials respondents submitted that Annexure-F affidavit though uploaded, the original affidavit was not presented before the authority. He had further submitted that the technical bid was opened on 03.10.2025 and immediately an intimation was sent to all the tenderers who have submitted their bids. The documents submitted by each one of the tenderers were available in online. Only for evaluating the same, the authorities have taken a week's time and the evaluation report was published on 11.10.2025. Therefore, after opening of the technical bid, the petitioner had five days time to raise his complaint. However, the petitioner has not raised any