In tender matters, judicial review is limited. Courts must exercise restraint, avoiding interference unless arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide acts are established. Public interest in timely infrastructure development outweighs individual commercial grievances, particularly when interim relief is sought via the suppression of material facts.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was delivered by N.MALA,J.)

1. Letter of Acceptance issued in respect of construction of New Railway BG Line between Tindivanam and Nagari (Reach I & II) on EPC Mode is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ for Certiorarified Mandamus, filed by the representative of M/s Harshita Construction, a participant in the bid floated by the Railways along with the second respondent M/s KMC Constructions Limited. Contending that the second respondent in whose favour Letter of Acceptance is issued, was an insolvent as on date of issuance of the Letter of Acceptance, the writ petition has been filed narrating, how the second respondent is disqualified from participating in the tender process.

2. During the vacation, the Division Bench of this Court, perused the records and passed an ad-interim injunction with the following observations:-

“Notice to the respondents returnable by 02.06.2026. Private notice is also permitted.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner is also permitted to serve the learned standing counsel for the first respondent/Southern Railway.

3.It is represented that the second respondent company is presently undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and moratorium order has been passed under Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). It is further submitted that performance guarantee is yet to be furnished by the second respondent. Hence, there shall be an order of interim injunction.”

3. Admittedly, the tender floated was for a major infrastructure project of the Southern Railways (construction), Egmore, Chennai, in public interest. The project is valued at a whooping cost of Rs.856,18,19,075/- as per the tender document. The present litigation is instituted by an unsuccessful tenderer.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for extension of the interim order stating that there is an apparent suppression of material facts about the financial condition of the second respondent company, the successful bidder. According to the learned counsel, eventhough the proceedings pending against the second respondent were listed out and placed by the petitioner in his objections dated 14.05.2026, the first respondent ignoring the same went ahead and issued the impugned Letter of Acceptance.

5. Per contra, the learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel, appearing for the first respondent as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent filed detailed counter-affidavits, explaining inter alia, that neither on the date of opening the bid i.e. 17.12.2025, or on the date of granting ad-interim exparte injunction on 27.05.2026, there was any moratorium order against the second respondent or any proceedings pending. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, even before the injunction order was passed, performance guarantee was furnished by the second respondent and accepted by the first respondent. According to the learned counsels, the two grounds on which the exparte injunction was granted were not available on the date of passing of the order. However, due to suppression and misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner, the interim injunction order was passed and hence it ought not to be extended.

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We find that the first reason assigned by t