Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
M/s.Marson Polymers – Appellant
Versus
The Director-cum-Nodal Officer The Institute of Road Transport – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tender validity period and extensions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. rules governing tender evaluation timeline. (Para 4 , 5 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. claim of invalidation due to expiry. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 27) |
| 4. arguments regarding tender process and compliance. (Para 11 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. court's interpretation of tender rules. (Para 22 , 23 , 29 , 30 , 41) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed. (Para 46) |
ORDER
Claiming that the validity period in respect of finalisation of the tender issued had already expired in terms of Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Rules, 2000, and seeking a further direction to issue a retender, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in the present case could be briefly summarised as under :-
The 1st respondent issued tender notification for supply of retreading materials like precured tread rubber, bonding gum and black vulcanizing cement fixing the due date for submission of tender as 6.2.2025. Thereafter, the date for submission of tender documents was extended for subsequent periods and lastly it was extended upto 10.03.2025.
3. As per the tender notification, the process consist
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
