Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Force Identification Pvt. Ltd., filed a Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an interim order dated 18.03.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.M.P.No. 12073 of 2026 in W.P.No. 11115 of 2026. The Writ Court had declined to grant an interim stay of the E-Tender process but ordered that any subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned E-Tender would be subject to the result of the writ petition. The appellant contended that the Tender Notification was issued on 24.02.2026, and a Corrigendum was issued on 20.03.2026, after the Model Code of Conduct for elections came into effect in Tamil Nadu on 15.03.2026. The appellant argued that the Corrigendum substantially modified the original tender conditions beyond the scope permitted under Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, and therefore an interim stay was necessary to prevent the issues from becoming infructuous. The respondents, represented by the Advocate General, opposed the appeal, stating that the Writ Court had already protected the parties' interests by making the tender process subject to the outcome of the writ petition. They also noted that the writ petition was scheduled for final hearing on 08.04.2026, and the appeal was unnecessary. The Division Bench, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Surender, dismissed the appeal, holding that the interim order passed by the Writ Court adequately safeguarded the interests of all parties. The court observed that the appellant could argue the main writ petition on the scheduled date and that the appeal was premature. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case and directed the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition on 08.04.2026 without being influenced by any observations made in the appeal. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Writ Law - Interim Order - Appeal Against Interim Order - The appellant challenged an interim order that allowed the E-Tender process to continue subject to the result of the writ petition. The Division Bench held that the Writ Court had adequately protected the interests of the parties and that the appellant could argue the main writ petition on the scheduled date. The appeal was dismissed as unnecessary. (Paras 2-6) B) Tender Law - Corrigendum - Model Code of Conduct - The appellant contended that a Corrigendum issued after the Model Code of Conduct came into effect substantially modified the tender conditions beyond the scope of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules. The court did not decide on the merits of this contention, as the interim order was found to be sufficient. (Paras 3-5) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Interim Relief - The court reiterated that the grant of interim stay is discretionary and that the Writ Court's order making the tender process subject to the result of the writ petition was a proper exercise of discretion. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the interim order passed by the Writ Court, which allowed the E-Tender process to continue subject to the result of the writ petition, should be set aside and an interim stay granted due to the issuance of a Corrigendum after the Model Code of Conduct came into effect.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal, holding that the interim order passed by the Writ Court adequately protected the interests of all parties. The court directed the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition on 08.04.2026 without being influenced by any observations made in the appeal. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Law Points
- Interim order
- Writ appeal
- E-tender
- Model Code of Conduct
- Corrigendum
- Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules
- Rule 17
- Interim stay
- Subject to result of writ petition
