Judicial review of tender processes adheres to principles of reasonableness, emphasizing the authority's discretion in evaluating bids and prioritizing public interest over individual complaints.

ORDER :

1. Through the writ petition in W.P. No.9067/2026, while the petitioner has assailed the order cancelling the total tender process, inspite of the petitioner being the lowest tendered and declared as L-1, W.P. No.10127/2026 has been filed against the fresh tender floated by the 2nd respondent for the very same project, that too pending the writ petition in W.P. No.9067/2026.

2. Since W.P. No.10127/2026 has been filed pending the writ petition in W.P. No.9067/2026, this Court had permitted the petitioner to participate in the fresh tender, through order dated 17.03.2026 and had further made it clear that the fresh tender process would be subject to the result of the petitions pending before this Court. In the light of the order passed by this Court, the present writ petitions have been listed before this Court and have been taken up for final disposal.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent intending to develop the Special Economic Zone premises, appointed the 2^nd respondent to provide consultation and monitoring services to the 3rd respondent and based on the said understanding between the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent, the 2^nd respondent issued notification dated 29.09.2025 inviting tender for the work of “Revamping of Trunk Infrastructure facilities at MEPZ Special Economic Zone, Tambaram, Chennai” with an estimated value fixed at Rs.457,62,58,412/- excluding GST. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the tender process consists of a two tier system of technical bid and financial bid. Though initially the last date for submission of the bid was fixed on 21.10.2025, there after it was extended upto 31.10.2025. The technical bids, though were to be opened on 3.11.2025, however, committee for evaluating the technical bid was formed by respondents 2 and 3 and on 18.11.2025, the technical bids were opened, as evidenced from the tender portal.

4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that based on the tender notification, the petitioner, having fulfilled the necessary criteria prescribed, submitted its bid and upon technical evaluation, the petitioner was found to be qualified in the technical bid along with 4 other bidders from out of the total number of 7 bidders. The financial bid submitted by the bidders were opened on 18.12.2025 in which the petitioner had quoted a value of Rs.350,30,82,129/- and as such the petitioner was ranked L-1.

5. It is the further averment of the petitioner that though the financial bid was opened on 18.12.2025, the same was not uploaded in the portal and the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent, over the mail, declared the per bidder stating that the bid value quoted is 23.45% below the estimate cost of tender, which was fixed at Rs.457,62,58,412/-.

6. It is the further averment of the petitioner that after opening of the financial bids, the 2nd respondent had sought clarification for proceeding with the evaluation vide its email on 4.1.2026 seeking detailed item-wise breakup corresponding to the lowest quoted rates for each individual component of work and in compliance of the said request, the petitioner had also furnished the breakup through email on 9.1.2026.

7. It is the further averment of the petitioner that pursuant to the detailed cost breakup sought for by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner detailed analysis for all major and high-value items, which substantially governed the financial viability of the project clearly indicat