Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
V.Best Engineers – Appellant
Versus
Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tender notification due to insufficient time. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. rejection of technical bid due to non-responsiveness. (Para 5) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments against rejection of bid. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's assessment of merits in the arguments. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. assessment of solvency and encumbrance issues. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. court's analysis of registration and required documents. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. conclusion dismissing both writ petitions. (Para 28) |
ORDER :
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
(A).Factual Background:
WP(MD).No.35569 of 2025 has been filed challenging E-Tender notification issued by the first respondent on 02.12.2025 primarily on the ground that only three days provided to make the site visit and to request for Site Visit Certificate. According to the petitioner, the time frame stipulated in the condition is contrary to the time frame found in the tender notification. It is further alleged that the tender notification has been issued without providing sufficient time as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000.
2.While WP(MD).No.35569 of 2025 was pending, the Site Vi
A contractor's bid can be rejected if their registration is invalid at the time of submission, as compliance with legal and procedural requirements in tender evaluation is mandatory.
Tender rejection valid if bidder unregistered at evaluation due to unverifiable certificates.
Judicial restraint is paramount in administrative contract disputes, with equal opportunity granted to bidders for document rectification to avoid discrimination.
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.
Bidders must ensure timely registration renewal to avoid disqualification; compliance with tender requirements is essential for fairness and integrity in the tendering process.
Tender rejection upheld as petitioner failed to provide sufficient proof of machinery ownership as mandated, highlighting strict adherence to bid requirements.
Technical bid non-responsive for missing mandatory physical affidavit; no evaluation or appeal period applies; limited judicial interference in tenders.
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
