Absence of authorisation in experience certificate does not constitute fraudulent practice unless knowingly misrepresented to mislead; courts exercise limited review in tenders, deferring to authority absent arbitrariness.

ORDER :

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

1.Aggrieved by the order in and by which the bid submitted by the 4th respondent has been accepted by the 3^rd respondent in rela floated for the purpose of undertaking the project ‘Chennai Ring Main Project’, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the tender notification issued, in which the 2^nd respondent was to serve as the execu 3rd respondent was to function as the implementing agency, the petitioner, along with four other entities participated in the tender process. The petitioner, in joint venture with JWIL Infra Ltd. (for short ‘JWIL’), the 4^th respondent, in joint venture with respondents 5 and 6, Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. ad Eco Protection Engineers Pvt. Ltd., participated in the bid process.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent submitted its bid showing the 7^th respondent as their sub-contractor to qualify for one of the technical eligibility for the purpose of construction of pipe carrying bridges of a particular length in a single contract for water supply project in urban area. To establish the said qualification, the 4th respondent had furnished the certificate of the 7^th respondent, viz., its sub contractor dated 31.01.2026, which was alleged to have been issued by JWIL. By letter dated 10.2.2026, when the 3rd respondent called upon the petitioner to clarify the contents of the performance certificate issued by JWIL to the 7th respondent, JWIL, vide its letter dated 12.02.2026, denied having issued the said certificate; rather disowned the said certificate by stating that it was not issued by an authorised person of their company and further requested the 3^rd respondent not to place any reliance on the said certificate.

4. Further, JWIL also issued show cause notice to the 7th respondent calling upon it to desist from using the said certificate and to immediately withdraw the same and to the said letter dated 12.02.2026, the 7th respondent, vide its reply dated 13.02.2026, had admitted that its staff, without the knowledge and approval of the Management had created and submitted the fabricated certificate and further admitted that it has not obtained any certificate pertaining to pipe carrying bridges from any authorised representative of JWIL. On receipt of the said communication from the 7th respondent, JWIL addressed a detailed representation to the 3rd respondent bringing to its notice Clause 3 of the Instructions to Bidders (for short ‘ITB’) which clearly defines ‘fraudulent practice’ committed by the 4th respondent and further submitted that such conduct constitutes an integrity violation and, therefore, called upon the 3rd respondent to take action against the 4th respondent and its joint venture by rejecting its bid.

5. Inspite of the categorical admission made by the 7^th respondent that the certificate produced by the 4th respondent, was fabricated and not issued by JWIL, the 3rd respondent did not take effective steps to reject the bid and instead the 3^rd respondent issued the BOQ summary. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent ought to have disqualified the 4th respondent from further