(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the order, dated 08.02.2026 passed by the first respondent herein and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to award contract to the eligible and lowest bidder as on 24.11.2025.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the order, dated 08.02.2026 passed by the first respondent herein, to quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to award the contract to the eligible and lowest bidder as on 24.11.2025.

2. Upon hearing Mr.Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent called for e-tender under Two Cover System in respect of the work namely, formation of the road from Barigam to Malaiyur in Nallampalli block of Dharmapuri district. The value of the work was fixed at Rs.10,28,00,000/- and the bidders were supposed to deposit an E.M.D amount of Rs.10,28,000/-. The tender was published and the last date for submission of the tender as per the original schedule was upto 15:00 hours from 29.09.2025 to 30.10.2025. In the document, it is mentioned that the opening of online bid documents on 30.10.2025 from 16:00 hours onwards.

3. Further, clause - 3, relating to salient features of the tender, it is categorically mentioned in (v) that the date, time and place of opening of the technical bid as that the bids will be opened online by the various officers on 30.10.2025 from 16:00 hours onwards at the office of the Joint Director/Project Director, D.R.D.A, Dharmapuri district. In the next row, it is mentioned that the original affidavit shall be submitted within 48 hours from the date and time of the opening of the technical bids submitted to the Joint Director/Project Director, D.R.D.A, Dharmapuri district.

4. The Clause - 11.3 reads as follows:-

                  “11.3 Submission of Original documents

                  a. The bidders are required to submit, (i) Scanned copy of Online Earnest Money Deposit payment receipt (ii) original affidavit regarding correctness of information furnished with bid document. These documents should reach the DRDA, Dharmapuri within 48 hours of the opening of technical qualification part – 1 of the Bid, either by registered post or by hand, failing which the bids will be declared as non-responsive.”

5. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the original notification, the technical bids were opened on 30.10.2025 and all the bidders, including the petitioner, submitted the original affidavit as per clause – 11.3, except the second respondent herein. On 24.11.2025, a summary was also uploaded that the tender of the petitioner was accepted after scrutiny and with reference to the technical bid of the second respondent, it was declared to be non-responsive. Once the summary was uploaded, it is believed that the respondents had opened the price bid also on the same day i.e., on 24.11.2026. However, when the website remained unresponsive in uploading the financial opening details, on 25.11.2025, the second respondent filed a Writ Petition before this Court and got an interim order of stay.

6. It was the contention of the second respondent that the first respondent did not open the technical bid on 30.10.2025 for the reasons best known to them and they postponed the same. It was further contended that it was opened only on 24.11.2025 and when the petitioner was ready with the affidavit and had dispatched the same, still, they have uploaded the scrutiny details on the same day as if the petitioner did not submit the original document. Without giving 48 hours time, as per clause – 11.3, the first respondent committed an error. On the said case being projected by the petitioner, the Court granted an interim order of stay on 28.11.2025. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was withdrawn on 06.02.2025. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, it was uploaded that the tender is reverted back to the stage of technical evaluation. The petitioner was shocked to find out that the second respondent’s bid was also included as a valid technical bid and thereafter, by opening the financial bid on the same day, the tender was awarded to the second respondent. On a scrutiny of the work order, it can be seen that it makes references to unconnected documents and mentions unrelated dates. Upon coming to know all of the above, the present Writ Petition is filed.

7. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, not only the value of the lowest bid that is important, but, the purity of the process is paramount. The learned Senior Counsel would rely upon paragraph Nos.39 and 40 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Asphaitings and Toll Highways (India) Limited Vs. Mandeepa Enterprises and Ors.( 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1959). The learned Senior Counsel would submit that when the tender condition unequivocally and categorically stated that the original affidavit should be submitted within 48 hours of the opening of technical bids and when the technical bids were admittedly opened only on 30.10.2025, there was no question of the petitioner submitting the original affidavit on 24.11.2025 or on 25.11.2025 and therefore, the first respondent cannot, on their own, arbitrarily and unilaterally, extend the time limit.

8. In a competitive tender, if any party makes a mistake, it cannot be permitted to be rectified to the disadvantage of the others. The date of opening of the technical bid is mentioned in the tender document. When every other participant, including the petitioner, were able to submit the document, the second respondent failed and neglected to do the same. This is a case of malafide action on the part of the tender floating authorities showing favouritism to the second respondent. The prevaricating statements made by the tender floating authorities in the earlier counter-affidavit, in the present counter-affidavit and in the additional counter-affidavit, mentioning two dates as technical bid opening and different dates in different communications, would itself throw light on the fact that all was not well in the entire process. Therefore, the work order granted in favour of the second respondent should be cancelled and the first respondent should be directed to proceed to consider the other bids which alone were found to be responsive and valid as on 24.11.2025. The petitioner, being the L1, should be awarded the contract.

9. Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General for the first respondent, by placing reliance on the counter-affidavit, would submit that it is true that the facts were not clearly mentioned in the earlier counter-affidavit as well as the original counter-affidavit and only to clarify the same, the additional counter-affidavit is now being filed. According to him, the tender bids were opened on 30.10.2025 at 16:00 hours. After opening, the scrutiny of technical bids was done on 19.11.2025 by the Tender Evaluation Committee. Thereafter, only on 24.11.2025, the summary of evaluation was uploaded in the internet. Since an interim order was obtained by the second respondent and also considering the fact that as per the rule and technical setup, immediately upon technical opening, there must be an e-mail that should be sent to all the bidders and in view of technical glitches in the portal, the same did not happen and secondly, considering the uploading date, as it can also be treated as the opening of the technical bid date, in the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of prolonging the case, the authorities took a decision to accept the case of the second respondent herein. Therefore, upon a letter being submitted by the learned Counsel for the second respondent that they will withdraw the case in the event of considering the petitioner’s technical bid, by accepting the original affidavit, the request was considered. The second respondent was accordingly informed. The original affidavit was received from the second respondent. The second respondent’s technical bid was treated as valid upon verification, since all the other qualifications were there and the technical bid was accepted. Thereafter, on the same day i.e., on 06.02.2026, the price bids were opened. Since the second respondent’s price bid was the lowest, it was accepted and the work order was accordingly issued. Therefore, even though the affairs with reference to the floating of the tender and filing of the counter-affidavit could have been better, he would submit that there was no malafide action or any violation of law in respect of the present tender.

10. Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent, by taking this Court though paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 11 of the additional counter-affidavit filed, would submit that even though it is true that the tender opening date was mentioned as 30.10.2025 in the tender document, as per the usual procedure that is followed and the GePNIC User Manual, there must be auto-generated e-mail that should have been served on the second respondent intimating about the opening of the technical bid. That was not done. It is not entirely the mistake of the second respondent. Only when the scrutiny details were uploaded on 24.11.2025 and an alert was made in that regard, the second respondent immediately verified and dispatched the affidavit and thereafter approached this Court. The non-submission of the original affidavit within 48 hours was not the fault of the second respondent. Had the second respondent been intimated about the opening of the technical bid, he would have submitted the affidavit which was ready with him even as on 29.10.2025. When the lawful bid of the second respondent was rightly considered and the bids were opened in an open and transparent manner and when the second respondent quoted far lesser sum than the petitioner, public interest also requires that the bid of the second respondent be accepted. He would also further submit that pursuant to the work order, the site had been handed over and they commenced the work.

11. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

12. It is true that when dead lines are fixed in the tender document, it cannot be relaxed for one bidder. Certainly, not in cases where the qualification itself arises belatedly. Even in respect of formal compliance such as the affidavit, once a dead line is fixed, it is for the parties to adhere to the same and in a competitive tender, any relaxation or extension of time in one party’s favour, should not be permitted unless specifically enabled in the tender conditions. In this case, originally, in the tender document, in the preamble, the date and time of online opening of bid document is generally stated as on 30.10.2025 from ‘16.:00 hours onwards’. In paragraph No.3 of the tender document, relating to salient features of the tender, the following is mentioned:-

                  3. SALIENT FEATURES OF THE TENDER

“IMAGE”

13. The clause – 11.3 was extracted supra. It is essential to to clause – 21, more specifically, clause – 21.1 to 21.3 which read as follows:-

                  “21. BID OPENING

                  21.1 The Employer inviting bids or his authorized representatives will open the bids online and this could be viewed by the bidders also online. In the event of the specified date for the opening of bids being declared a holiday for the Employer, the bids will be opened at the appointed time on the next working day.

                  21.2 The file containing Part I of the bid will be opened first.

                  21.3 In all cases, the amount of EMD and validity of the bid shall be scrutinized. Thereafter, the bidders’ name and such other details as the Employer may consider appropriate, will be notified as Part I bid opening summary by the authority inviting bids at the online opening. A separate electronic summary of the opening is generated and kept online.”

14. On a perusal of the tender document, while it is kept simple as ‘technical bid opening’ and thereafter, ‘financial bid opening’, in practice, upon going through the file and the counter-affidavit, it can be seen that there are three actions that are performed with reference to technical bid. Firstly, the files are clicked open. That seems to have been done on 30.10.2025. Thereafter, the tender committee had scrutinised the technical bid document which is said to be 19.11.2025. The third action that was performed is uploading of the summary, which was on 24.11.2025. Therefore, when the earlier paragraph No.3 uses the word ‘opening of the technical bid’, in paragraph No.11.3, the words used is that ‘opening of the technical qualification part-I of the bid’.

15. In this regard, even if it is to be considered that the click open of the file should be deemed to be the opening of the technical bid, it must be seen that the option is kept open for the respondents to open the technical bid from 30.10.2025 from ‘16:00 hours onwards’. Therefore, unless the initial mail is sent to the participants that the bid has been opened, it cannot be concluded that the parties have knowledge that it was to be opened only at 30.10.2025. This is the first circumstance, the Court is taking into consideration. Secondly, when three different actions are performed under the head ‘technical bid opening’ the additional counter- affidavit, in paragraph No.9, uses the word ‘technical bid opening’ for the clicking open of the document on 30.10.2025 as also it uses the word ‘opening of the technical bid’ for the scrutiny on 19.11.2025. Therefore, when different meanings can be attributed and if the tender floating authority is of a particular understanding, then, it cannot be held that it is arbitrary on the part of the tender authority to accept the affidavit on 25.11.2025 inasmuch as the uploading of the details happened only on 24.11.2025. The same becomes reasonable inasmuch as the e-mail for clicking open of the bids was not sent on 30.10.2025. To accept the proposition submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, if the fault is only on the second respondent, then, the first respondent cannot unilaterally extend time or accept the affidavit belatedly to the prejudice of the petitioner and the petitioner should have been declared as the lowest bidder.

16. However, in this case, when there are other factors such as glitches in the web portal and the respondents also contributing to the same, it cannot be said that it was entirely the fault of the second respondent and therefore, the said principle of law of violence to the purity of the tendering process or arbitrary extension of time is not established in this case. I have also gone through the entire original file. The file also has several mistakes with reference to dates, references etc. However, on a careful scrutiny of the documents, it can be seen that the authorities are acting recklessly while handling the file. But, I do not find any malafide to favour the second respondent or that the other bidders were prejudiced in any manner by the actions of the respondents or the purity of the tendering process have been compromised. In the absence of any arbitrariness or malafide, for every error or unsavory action during the process of tender, this Court need not interfere, as the public interest which is also the factor that has to be gone into as the people in the remote village are in need of roads. It is now stated that the tender has been finalised and the work order has been given.

17. For all the above reasons, I am unable to interfere and accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed.

                  Note:- It is disheartening to note that the officials are keeping the Court or any authority which scrutinises the tender in a guessing mode. Invariably, all the officials, when they scrutinised the tender and signed the documents, had not thought it fit to mention the date as 19.11.2025. This Court finds that in tender matters, this technique is deliberately used. The Government of Tamil Nadu shall issue a circular that whenever any Tender Scruitny Committee scrutinises the technical bid or the price bid or for that matter, any minutes is entered into and the Tender Committee is signing, the signature should also contain the date and the signature and the date should be in an indelible ink and not in pencil.