Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64551
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
W.P. NO.38469 OF 2025 | W.M.P. NO. 42992 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. G.Sankaran, SC, for M/s. R.Sivakumar
For the Respondents: Mr. P.Kumaresan, AAG, Assisted by Mr.C.Gowthamraj, Mr. Vijay Narayan, SC, for M/s. S.Mekhala, Mr. T.K.Bhaskar for M/s.Ramya Subramaniam
The court established that the evaluation period for a tender should start from the date of opening the commercial bid, not the submission date, thus validating the ongoing tender process.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Act, 1998 - Rule 26 - Invalidity of tender process - The petitioner contended that the tender had expired after 180 days per Rule 26, claiming their participation in the negotiation was unjustified. The court ruled the time for evaluation began upon opening of the commercial bid, not the submission. The petitioner was L-1 for one item but failed to prove entitlement for the whole process to collapse. (Paras 6, 12, 44)
(B) Procedure - Multi-stage tender - The court emphasized the need for a harmonious reading between the statutory rules and the tender document, affirming that the evaluation timeline is not mandatorily linked to the submission deadline. (Paras 38, 45)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the validity period of a tender after submission deadlines and subsequent extensions leading to claim of invalidity due to expiry of the process, emphasizing they were not invited to negotiations despite being L-1 for bonding gum.
Findings of Court:
The Court established that the evaluation and award period should start upon the opening of commercial bids, ultimately ruling that the petitioner’s argument for invalidation based on elapsed time was erroneous.
Issues: Whether the tender validity period should start from the submission date or bid opening date and the implications of the statutory provisions on tender validity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the period for evaluation strictly begins with the commercial bid's opening, aligning the interpretation of related rules to prevent frustration of ongoing tender processes.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| 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 consists of two stages, viz., (i) Technical Bid and (ii) Commercial Bid. The technical bid was opened on 10.03.2025. In the technical bid, five persons were declared eligible and qualified in the technical bid for consideration of their commercial bid. Thereafter, the commercial bid was opened on 21.7.2025 and while the petitioner was L-4 for the item procured treat rubber, but was L-1 for bonding gum.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the process of tender is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Rules, 2000 (for short ‘Rules’). As per the tender notification, clause 5.7 relate to evaluation criteria wherein clause (n) provides that the evaluation of tender would be done as per the Act and the Rules.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that Rule 26 relates to the time taken for evaluation and extension of tender and award of contract within the period for which the tenders are held valid and that the tender accepting authority may seek for extension of validity of tenders for completion of evaluation, provided that sum total of all extensions shall ordinarily not exceed 180 days. Therefore, if the evaluation of tender and award of contract is not completed within the extended validity period of tender, the same shall be declared to have become invalid.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per the statutory provisions, the validity period of a tender gets expired on the 180th day from the last date for submitting the tender document and, therefore, the last date for submission of tender document being 6.2.2025, on 21.7.2025, when the commercial bid was opened, it was beyond 180 days and, therefore the validity period of the tender stood expired. Since the evaluation of tender and award of contract was not completed before the expiry of 180 days from 6.2.2025, the tenders submitted have become invalid and there cannot be any further process of tender.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner that inspite of the tenders having become invalid beyond the 180 days from the last date for submission of tender, individual communication was issued to the participants through e-mail on 6.10.2025 to participate in the negotiation meeting towards procurement of retread material, which was to be held on 8.10.2025. Though the petitioner was L-1 in respect of bonding gum and L-4 in respect of retread material, the petitioner has not received any communication to participate in the negotiations for reasons best known to the respondent.
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per clause 6.2 of the tender notification, the offer submitted by the bidder should be firm and valid for a period of 120 days from the date of opening of co
