Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Karungappan – Appellant
Versus
Joint Director/Project Director District Rural Development Agency, Aranthangi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rejection of technical bids overview (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding bid evaluation process (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's analysis of compliance with tender requirements (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. conclusion and dismissal of writ petitions (Para 24 , 25) |
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
Failure to submit mandatory documents leads to rejection of technical bids as non-responsive, with no grounds for procedural violation.
Technical bid non-responsive for missing mandatory physical affidavit; no evaluation or appeal period applies; limited judicial interference in tenders.
The court affirmed that tender documents must be signed as per mandatory requirements, interpreting 'may' as 'shall', thus validating the rejection of non-compliant bids.
Rejection of a technical bid based on non-submission of an IT Return not due at the time of bid submission constitutes arbitrary action, violating principles of fair evaluation.
Tender authorities have broad discretion in evaluating bids, and a failure to comply with mandatory document submission requirements justifies disqualification unless clear malice is shown.
Failure to disclose material facts in bid documents renders the bid non-responsive.
The court upheld the rejection of the technical bid based on the assessment of the bidder's capability to execute the work as per the tender document.
The rejection of technical bids based on arbitrary grounds was unjustified, necessitating a fresh tender process due to the flawed evaluation and lack of two qualified bidders.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.
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
