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.

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 Visit Certificate was issued to the writ petitioner and the petitioner had submitted his tender form in time. Therefore, nothing survives to be adjudicated in the present writ petition.

3.The petitioner has submitted his tender on 11.12.2025. The e-tender was opened from 3.30 p.m onwards on 12.12.2025. The evaluation process was continued up to 26.12.2025 and the minutes of the Evaluation Committee were uploaded on 26.12.2025 wherein the bid submitted by the petitioner company was rejected treating it as non-responsive. This order is put to challenge in WP(MD).No.87 of 2026.

4.The reasons assigned for rejection of technical bid of the writ petitioner are as follows:

a)Copy of Solvency Certificate and Encumbrance Certificate, as furnished to the registration authority at the time of registration in his or her/their name as contractor in PWD is not enclosed.

b)The tenderer has quoted (-) 33% of value against the value put to tender which is non workable rate. Hence, the quality of work will be questionable.

c)The acceptance letter of the technical person concerned did not enclose.

5.Based upon the above said reasons, the e-tender offered by the writ petitioner was found to be invalid and the tender bid was treated as “non responsive”. It was further intimated that the necessary approval has been obtained by the tender approval authority namely the first respondent.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as Solvency Certificate is concerned, they had obtained the same on 04.09.2024 itself. One of the partners namely Mrs.Indrani had retired from the partnership firm and they had inducted a new partner namely Mrs.Thenmozhi in her place. Therefore, the registration had to be updated. When approached the authority for updation of the registration, there was no response from them. Hence, the petitioner company had filed WP(MD).No.8748 of 2025 seeking a mandamus as against the first respondent to update the amendment of the petitioner's partnership deed and issue a fresh Solvency Certificate. This writ petition came to be allowed on 04.04.2025 with a direction to the respondent to update the records. This order was put to challenge by the first respondent in WA(MD).No.1781 of 2025 and the same came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 04.07.2025. Therefore, the delay in updating the registration of the petitioner firm is not due to fault on the part of the petitioner. The respondent cannot take advantage of their own wrong and contended that the petitioner has not produced Solvency Certificate and Encumbrance Certificate as furnished to the registration authority at the time of registration.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that the Governm