Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Unnamed Judge, J
J.Shahul Hameed – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent
Writ Petition
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Service Matter|Tender
Act Referred
Headnote
Result: Writ petition dismissed; no costs.
For the Petitioners:Learned counsel for the petitioner
For the Respondents:Learned Government Advocate for the 3rd respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges technical bid rejection for missing gst certificate. (Para 1) |
| 2. parties dispute bid validity and tender opening procedure. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. rule 21 non-violation; missing documents justify rejection. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed for lack of illegality. (Para 7) |
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the rejection of technical bid of the petitioner by the third respondent. The third respondent issued a tender notification inviting bids for renovation of Panchayat office building namely, Subramaniyapuram, Mannakudi and Narpavalakudi Panchayat office buildings. The petitioner claiming to be eligible and qualified submitted a bid on 04.03.2026. The technical bid of the petitioner was opened on 06.03.2026 and it was found that the petitioner had not uploaded the latest GST certificate as mandated in the conditions of tender document. Therefore, since the essential documents have not been uploaded, technical bid of the petitioner was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the latest GST Certificate was uploaded along with the bid and the technical bid was opened in the absence of the petitioner which is in violation of Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, and therefore, the rejection of the bid of the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory.
3. Learned Government Advocate for the 3rd respondent has placed on record the bid submitted by the petitioner which reveals that the petitioner has not uploaded the latest GST certificate. The petitioner had uploaded the GST certificate for the month of December, 2025 and not uploaded the GST certificate for the month of January and February 2026. Therefore, the third respondent has rightly rejected the technical bids of the petitioner for not having uploaded the said document which is essential document and therefore, the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner for not uploading the latest GST certificate cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned Government Advocate for the 3rd respondent also submitted that pursuant to the tender notification, work orders had been issued to the successful bidders and no useful purpose will be served if the technical bids of the petitioner is accepted at this stage.
4. Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, deals with the opening of the tenders and sub Rule 3 states that the tenders will be opened in the presence of the tenderers or one representative of the tenderer who chooses to be present.
5. Learned Government Advocate submitted that bids are submitted through online and upon verification of the technical bid, the technical bid will be accepted or rejected in the event of the bidder has not uploaded the essential documents. In any event, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner for not opening the technical bids in his presence since the petitioner had not uploaded the latest GST certificate.
6.The petitioner has also not produced the latest GST certificate that is for the month of January and February, 2026 along with the typeset of papers. The essential documents having not been uploaded, the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner cannot said to be arbitrary or discriminatory or in violation of Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
