Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 12290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayanan, J
R.VELUSAMY – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government – Respondent
WP No. 3719 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: I.M. Siddartha Ramarajan
For the Respondents: T. Seenivasan, L.S.M. Hasan Fizal
A party who participates in a tender process without challenging the notification cannot later seek relief based on defects in the tender conditions, especially when they fail to meet the substantive requirements of the bid and no actual prejudice is proven.
Headnote:The petitioner, a Class-1 contractor, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the rejection of his bid for bitumen and cement concrete road works. The bid was rejected on the grounds that the petitioner failed to enclose a cement concrete road experience certificate and the December 2025 GST-3B return. The petitioner contended that the tender notification was defective as Clause 4.1.4 erroneously required experience in "Building works" instead of road works and specified an incorrect time period for certificates. The court examined whether the technical errors in the tender notification justified the petitioner's challenge after he had already participated in the bidding process. The court reasoned that a tender is merely an invitation to offer and the submission of a bid constitutes the offer. It was held that since the petitioner was a road contractor and was aware of the nature of the work, the erroneous use of the term "building construction" caused no actual prejudice. The court further noted that the petitioner failed to provide the necessary experience certificate for cement concrete roads, which was a substantive requirement. In the light of the above, this writ petition is dismissed . No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts and arguments regarding the rejection of a tender bid due to missing documentation and alleged defects in the tender notification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. participation in a tender process precludes a subsequent challenge to the validity of the tender conditions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. tenders are invitations to offer, and technical errors in notifications do not grant relief if no actual prejudice is caused. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. dismissal of petition when substantive requirements are not met and interference would contravene public interest. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
Prayer : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quash the impugned Rejection email order passed against the Petitioner by the 5th Respondent in Tender Ref.No.2944/2025/E1 in Tender Id. 2026 _MAWS_642527_1 dated 29.01.2026 and consequently direct the 5th respondent to proceed with the petitioner’s bid for further process within the stipulated time fixed by this Court.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.I.M.Siddartha Ramarajan
For R1 to R3 & R5 : Mr.T.Seenivasan
Spl.Govt.Pleader
For R4 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasasn Fizal
Addl.Govt.Pleader
ORDER
Heard Mr.Siddartha Ramarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.T.Seenivasan, leaned counsel appearing for R1 to R3 and R5 and Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader for R4.
2. The petitioner is a registered Class-1 contractor. He claims to have constructed roads, bridges, underground drainage works, water supply works and other infrastructure related works. He pleads that his expertise has been utilised by various Corporations. The present writ petition relates to a tender for two packages of works consisting of bitumen road works and cement concrete works to be executed at Thirumuruganpoondi Municipality.
The petitioner participated in the bid on 27.01.2026. However, the bid was not considered on two grounds namely, i) the Cement Concrete Road completion/experience certificate was not enclosed and ii) December 2025 GST-3B was not enclosed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition.
3. It is the plea of Mr.Siddartha Ramarajan that the clause calling upon the participants to produce the estimate certificate is itself defective. He invites my attention to Clause 4.1.4 wherein, the 5th respondent has called upon the participants to produce the experience certificate with respect to completed “Building works”.
4. He further points out that instead of asking for certificate for three years preceding 2025, the clause calls upon the proposed tenderer to furnish certificates for the period from 2020 to 2023. He urges that since the tender notification itself is invalid, the rejection of his tender ought to be interfered with.
5. He further states that by way of abundant caution, the petitioner had uploaded the experience certificate for bitumen works and that he is willing to produce the completion certificate for cement concrete works. Furthermore, he points out that the GST requirement was never mentioned in the tender notification and therefore, rejection of the petitioner’s bid on either ground requires interference.
6. Dr.T.Seenivasan states that he has been instructed by the 5th respondent in writing. The instructions state that as a first-class contractor, the writ petitioner ought to have known that a work completion/experience certificate should be submitted for both Bitumen Top Road as well as Cement Concrete Road. While he has produced the certificate for BT road, he has not produced the same for CC road. The instructions further state that the petitioner has not produced the latest GST returns, whereas the other two tenderers who participated in the same tender have produced the latest GST returns. He further states that when the matter was taken up for technical evaluation on 29.01.2026, these defects were noticed by the 5th respondent and consequently the bid was rejected.
