Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sasi Road Finishers and Engineering Contractors, filed a writ appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing their writ petition. The dispute arose from a tender floated by the first respondent (State of Tamil Nadu) for road formation. The appellant, a registered contractor, submitted a bid and was initially found eligible. The second respondent, M.S.Chinnakannu and Co, was initially disqualified on 24.11.2025 but later re-admitted as a qualified bidder on 6.2.2026, with the tender portal updating the status on 8.2.2026. The appellant challenged this re-admission as arbitrary. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, leading to the present appeal. The Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice G.Arul Murugan, heard the matter. The appellant argued that the re-admission was without reason, while the respondents contended that the tender process was fair. The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or mala fides in the re-admission. The court emphasized that judicial review in tender matters is limited and that the Single Judge's order was correct. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - The court considered whether the re-admission of a previously disqualified bidder was arbitrary. Held that the tender process involves technical evaluation and unless mala fides or arbitrariness is shown, courts should not interfere. (Paras 2-3)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - The court reiterated that the High Court's power under Article 226 is limited in tender matters. Held that the Single Judge correctly declined to interfere as the appellant failed to establish any illegality. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the re-admission of the second respondent as a qualified bidder in the tender process.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Judicial review of tender process
- Scope of interference under Article 226
- Letters Patent Appeal
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (03) 102
WA No.715 of 2026 and CMP Nos.7220 and 7218 of 2026
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Chief Justice, G.Arul Murugan
Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.S.Aswin Prasanna (Appellant), Mr.P.Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, Government Advocate (R1), Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, Senior Counsel for Mr.I.Gokulraj (R2)
Sasi Road Finishers and Engineering Contractors
The State of Tamil Nadu and M.S.Chinnakannu and Co
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging re-admission of a bidder in a tender process.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the re-admission of the second respondent as a qualified bidder in the tender process.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.No.5126 of 2026 on 25.2.2026.
Issues
Whether the re-admission of the second respondent as a qualified bidder was arbitrary and illegal.
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the re-admission of the second respondent was without any reason and arbitrary.
Respondents contended that the tender process was conducted fairly and the re-admission was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
In tender matters, judicial review is limited to examining whether the process is arbitrary or mala fide. The appellant failed to establish any such grounds, hence the Single Judge's order was upheld.
Judgment Excerpts
Questioning the correctness of the order dated 25.2.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5126 of 2026, the unsuccessful writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal.
The appellant firm, claiming to be one of the registered and eligible contractors, submitted and uploaded the tender document as per procedure laid down in the tender notice along with all the required documents as stipulated by the first respondent on 30,10.2025.
Procedural History
The appellant filed W.P.No.5126 of 2026 before the High Court challenging the re-admission of the second respondent. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 25.2.2026. The appellant then filed the present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Acts & Sections
- Letters Patent: Clause 15
