Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Karungappan and Co., Represented by Karungappan (Partner) – Appellant
Versus
Joint Director/Project Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) Aranthangi Panchayat Union Pudukkottai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. e-tender for refugee housing; technical bids rejected for missing physical documents. (Para 2 , 3 , 11) |
| 2. appellant contends unreasoned rejection, violation of tender clauses and cooling period. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. respondents justify non-responsiveness due to missing original affidavit per clause 9.3. (Para 7 , 8 , 15) |
| 4. no infirmity; appeals dismissed upholding bid rejection. (Para 10 , 18) |
| 5. tender clauses mandate physical submission; non-filing precludes evaluation. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Under assail is the order passed in WP.(MD)Nos.31177, 29540, 31178, 31176, 31179, 31175 and 29467 of 2025 dated 12.02.2026.
2.The appellant herein is the writ petitioner/Class-1A contractor has challenged the rejection of technical bid dated 11.10.2025 with regard to the seven packages. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the first respondent/The Joint Director / Project Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Aranthangi Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District had invited E-bid for construction of 132 houses for Sri Lankan refugees for 2025-2026 under two cover system for seven packages. The notification was issued on 19.09.2025
Technical bid non-responsive for missing mandatory physical affidavit; no evaluation or appeal period applies; limited judicial interference in tenders.
Failure to submit mandatory documents leads to rejection of technical bids as non-responsive, with no grounds for procedural violation.
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.
The decision-making process of the tendering authority should be respected unless there is mala fide or perversity, and the court should only interfere in tender matters in furtherance of public inte....
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.
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.
Compliance with tender conditions and eligibility criteria is crucial in technical bid disqualification cases, and the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited.
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
