The court emphasized adherence to natural justice principles in administrative decisions, specifically regarding conflict of interest in tender processes.

COMMON JUDGMENT

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

The appellant Thiru.K.Manikandan filed WP(MD)Nos.19664 and

20084 to 20086 of 2023 challenging the tender processes floated by the respective respondent local bodies. He also wanted fresh tender notification to be issued for the petition mentioned works. The learned Single Judge vide common order dated 20.04.2025 dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the same, these writ appeals have been filed.

2.Due to sheer efflux of time and the subsequent developments, the question of interfering with the concluded tender processes does not arise at all. To be fair to the appellant's counsel, he also did not pursue the matter seriously. The sole focus was for deleting the direction set out in Paragraph No.17 of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. It reads thus :

“17.However, in the instant case, having allowed the petitioner as well as the construction company in which the petitioner as well as his wife, Mrs. D.Janaka Jebangalin, are equal equity shareholders, the respondents have failed in ensuring a level playing field preventing potential manipulation of the bidding process. In line with the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 2166 of 2023 dated 23.03.2023, I hereby reiterate the order of this Court again by directing the respondents to prevent the writ petitioner as well as his wife in the name of MJD Construction and Engineering Contractors Private Limited in participating in the same tender process in future.”

3.It is seen that the appellant's wife is a shareholder and Director of MJD Construction and Engineering Contractors P Ltd. Both the appellant as well as the said company have been submitting tenders for various tender works in a number of cases. They turn out to be L1 and L2. This according to the respondents herein constitutes clear violation of the confidentiality principle and violates the integrity of the tender processing. They would contend that there should not be any conflict of interest between or among the bidders. The learned counsel for the impleaded respondent had submitted a detailed written note. He also placed reliance on the decisions reported in Kumbhat Holographics v. State of Tamilnadu MANU/TN/4594/2021 andKandasamy v. Commissioner of Rural Development MANU/TN/3202/2023. Our attention was also drawn to Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency (Public Private Partnership Procurement) Rules 2012 and. He contended that the application of the said Rule has not been confined only to public private procurement alone.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant would argue that when there is no statutory bar either under Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency ( Public Private Partnership Procurement) Rules 2012 prohibiting participation of persons related to each other or sharing the common household, the learned Single Judge was not justified in issuing a blanket direction for disqualification in future. According to him, Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency ( Public Private Partnership Procurement) Rules 2012 applies only to public private partnership concerns. It is further contended that the appellant is no longer a shareholder in MJD Construction and Engineering Contractors P Ltd.

5.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. We note that the appellant had challenged the impugned tender processes on the grounds set out in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. As already mentioned, we do not propose to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions. However, in Paragraph 17, the learned Single