Divisible tenders mandate 5% reservation for SC/ST enterprises matching lowest bid under TN Tenders Act.

O R D E R

The petitioner, a Transport Contractor, is before this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to amend the E- Tender Notice dated 19.02.2026, inviting bids for the contract of handling and transportation of food grains and other notified commodities, along with allied services at the warehouses, as set out in pages 96 to 99 of the tender document, by incorporating 5% reservation for Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe communities, as mandated under proviso (4) to Section 10 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and Rule 30(c) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000 .

2. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and is eligible and entitled to participate in the tender process for handling and transportation of food grains to warehouses in the State of Tamil Nadu.

3. The respondent issued a tender document dated 19.02.2026 inviting bids for the contract of handling and transportation of food grains and other notified commodities, along with allied services at the warehouses, as set out in pages 96 to 99 of the tender document. The contract relates to 62 warehouses situated across the State of Tamil Nadu, and bidders are entitled to participate in the tender process for all or any of the warehouses of their choice.

4. Mr. A.K. Baskara Pandiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the award of contract is divisible and, therefore, 5% of the warehouses under the tender document ought to have been reserved for enterprises belonging to Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe communities. He further submitted that the tender document, having been issued without providing such reservation, is contrary to proviso (4) to Section 10 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and Rule 30(c) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000 , and is therefore arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence, the respondent is under an obligation to amend the tender document.

5. In response, Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent, submitted that the award of contract is not divisible and, therefore, there is no violation of proviso (4)

to Section 10 (2) of the Act, 1998 and Rule 30(c) of the Rules, 2000. He further submitted that although the tender document invites bids for handling and transportation of food grains to 62 warehouses, the award of contract in respect of each warehouse is not divisible in the manner contended by the petitioner, and only if the work is divisible in respect of a particular warehouse can 5% reservation be provided to enterprises belonging to Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe communities.

6. In support of his submissions, he drew the attention of this Court to the illustration set out in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. He further submitted that the evaluation of tenders is within the domain of the Tender Inviting Authority and that judicial interference is permissible only if the decision-making process is arbitrary or irrational.

7. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

(i) Caretel Infotech Limited vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others [(2019) 14 SCC 81]; and (ii) Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and others [(2007) 14 SCC 517]

8. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side and the materials placed on record have been duly considered.

9. Pursuant to the tender document issued by the res