(Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to IFB No. 18 to 23 /F O AND M of CWSS-Salem and Erode / SDO (T6)/CE/ CBE/2025 dt.17.12.2025 and quash the same as arbitrary, discriminatory and lacking in fairness.

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the record relating to IFB No. 18 to 23/F. O and M of CWSS- Salem and Erode / SDO (T6)/ CE/ CBE/ 2025 dated 17.12.2025 of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary , unconstitutional and a violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the record relating to IFB No. 23/ F.O and M of CWSS- 2026 29/Do-2/ CE / VLR 2025 dataed 17.12.2025 of the 3rd Respondent and quash the same as arbtirary, unconstitutional and a violation of Article 14 19(1) (g) and 21 of the constitution of India.

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the record relating to IFB No. 22/ F.O and M of CWSS- 2026 29/Do-2/ CE / VLR 2025 dataed 17.12.2025 of the 3rd Respondent and quash the same as arbtirary, unconstitutional and a violation of Article 14 19(1) (g) and 21 of the constitution of India.

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the record relating to IFB No. 18 to 23/ F.O and M of CWSS- Salem and Erode/ SDO (T6)/ CE/ CBE/ 2025 dated 17.12.2025 of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, unconstitutional and a violation of Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the record relating to IFB No. 18 to 23/ F.O and M of CWSS- Salem and Erode/ SDO (T6)/ CE/ CBE/ 2025 dated 17.12.2025 of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, unconstitutional and a violation of Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the record relating to IFB No.23 / F.O and M of CWSS- 2026-29/ DO-2/ CE/ VLR/ 2025/ dated 17.12.2025 of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, unconstitutional and a violation of Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the record relating to IFB No.22/ F.O and M of CWSS- 2026-29/ DO-2/ CE/ VLR/ 2025/ dated 17.12.2025 of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, unconstitutional and a violation of Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to IFB No 24 to 28/F.O and M of CWSS to coimbatore SDO (T7) CE / CBE / 2025 dated 17.12.2025 of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, unconstitioutional and a violation of Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitutional India.

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to IFB No.23 to 28/F.O and M of CWSS/SDO/CE-TNJ/2025 17.12.2025 and the second call tender Notice IFB 29-32/F O and M of CWSS/SDO/CE-TNJ/2026 Notice dated 23.2.2026 in so far as IFB No.29 of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, unconstitutional and a violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the constitution of India.

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the record relating to IFB No. 17 to 22/ F. O and M of CWSS/ SDO/ CETNJ/ 2025 17.12.2025 and the second call tender Notice dated 23.02.2026 in so far as IFB No. 30, 31 and 32 of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, unconstitutional and a violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the record relating to IFB No.23/F O AND M of CWSS-2026-29/DO-2/CE/VLR/2025/Dt 17.12.2025 of the 3rd respondent and the consequential work orders i) Lr.No.9326/F.O and M of Hog CWSS in Dharmapuri (IV AND V) DO/CE/VLR/2026/dt.09.03.2026 ii) Lr.No.13326/F.O AND M CWSS to DKC /9W.O)/DO/CE/VLR/2026/dt.13.03.2026 iii) Lr.No.F.10326/O AND M of CWSS to HWS to I, II AND III/DO/CE/VLR/2026/dt.10.03.2026 in favour of the respondents i) Raja and Co ii) Thiru.S.Samraj and iii) M/S.ECO Protection Engineering and quash the same as arbitrary, unconstitutional and a violation of article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the constitution of India. WP No. 12532 of 2026 Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the record relating to IFB No. 22/F. O and M of CWSS-2026-29/DO-2/CE/VLR/2025/Dt 17.12.2025 of the 3rd Respondent . i) Letter.No 1003/F. O and M of CWSS to RPT,VLR amd TPR (W.O)/SDO/CE/VLR/2026/dt.10.03.2026 ii) Letter.No.1303/F. O and M OF CWSS to Cuddalore, Villupuram, Kallakurichi (W.O)/SDO/CE/VLR/2026/ Dt.13.03.2026 iii) Letter. No.0903/F.O and M of CWSS to tvm (W.O) /SDO/CE/VLR/2026/dt.09.03.2026 iv) Letter .No. 1003/F.O and M of CWSS to Vellore (W.O)/SDO/CE/VLR/2026/dt.10.03.2026 In favour of the respondents Raja and Co ,M/s. SSV Developers, M/s EV Construction, and M/s Classic Engineering Enterprises and quash the same as arbitrary, unconstitutional and a violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.)

Common Order

1. Since the petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the very same tender, these writ petitions are disposed of by this Court through a common order. The respective petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the impugned tender on the following grounds:-

                     (a) The tender conditions have been tailor-made selectively for certain bidders alone and are not in public interest.

                     (b) The GST returns submitted by the successful bidders in the impugned tender do not match with the turnover statements submitted by the successful bidders along with their bids, which violate the terms and conditions of the tender.

                     (c) The tender conditions are in violation of Rule 20(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders (Public Private Partnership Procurement) Rules, 2012 (in short “Rules”), which stipulates that for a contract exceeding Rs.10 crores, a 30-day period is mandatory for the submission of bids. However, in the impugned tender, the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (in short “TWAD Board”) has given only a 15-day period for the submission of bids. Eventhough Rule 20(2) of the Tender Rules enables the tender inviting authority to reduce the time limit with the approval of the superior authority for the submission of bids, the time lime can be reduced only by giving adequate reasons. In the case on hand, the reasons, namely, "Model Code Conduct" having come into effect in view of the Assembly Election, is not an adequate reason for the purpose of reducing the time limit for the submission of bids. Even during the Model Code of Conduct, the tender inviting authority is empowered to seek permission from the Election Commission for proceeding with the tender, and therefore, adequate reasons have not been given by the Tender Inviting Authority for reducing the time limit for the submission of the bids.

                     (d) The tender conditions, which stipulate that the tenderers must have continuous maintenance experience for a period of 18 months within a block of 3 years during the last 5 years, and that no joint venture participation is permitted, are tailor-made only for persons who had participated in the previous tenders for the period from 2023 to 2026. Assuming the authority in the instant case had obtained specific authorisation from the superior authority to reduce the time limit stipulated under Rule 20(1)(b) of the Rules recording the reason for the same, unless such order satisfies Section 22(3) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (in short “the Act”), the non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under Section 22(3) of the Act would render such orders ineffective. Consequently, as per the later limb of Section 22(3) of the Act, such order of reduction in time stands annulled, and therefore, the previous requirement stands valid because the power to delegate will be construed in the same way as other powers and will not therefore extend to sub-delegation in the absence of express or implied provisions to that effect. The delegate must also keep within the bounds of the power actually delegated, which may be narrower than that possessed by the delegating authority. Therefore, what was delegated to the Government in prescribing the minimum period of 30 days in the case of tenders exceeding rupees ten crores is mandatory and such powers cannot be sub-delegated by its agency by exercising power under Rule 20(2) of the Rules unless otherwise such an order is tabled in compliance with Section 22(3) of the Act to achieve the object of the legislative intention of the Act and the Rules, namely, to provide transparency in the public procurement and to regulate the procedure in inviting and accepting the tenders.

2. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel, and Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respective petitioners, drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities, in support of the contentions of the respective petitioners:

                     (a) A decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sri Venkatram Spinners Pvt Ltd., Cholapuram Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others [2017 Supreme (Mad) 2178]. Relying upon the said decision, learned Senior counsel argued that reasons will have to be given for reducing the time limit for the submission of bids, and it cannot be mechanical and there must be independent application of mind and it should be by way of a reasoned order. However, in the case on hand, the reasons given by the Tender Inviting Authority for reducing the time limit for the submission of bids, namely, Model Code of Conduct having come into effect on account of Assembly Elections, is not an adequate reason, as the Tender Inviting Authority can seek permission from the Election Commission to proceed with the tender process.

                     (b) A decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ind-Vigo Coal Pvt Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Co Ltd (TANGEDCO) [ 2021 Supreme (Mad) 3602]. Relying upon this decision, they would submit that the code of conduct to be observed on account of the ensuing election is not an adequate reason for reducing the time limit for the submission of bids as it is open for the Tender Inviting Authority to approach the Election Commission to proceed with the tender process.

3. The learned Senior counsels for the respective petitioners also drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities in support of their contentions;

                     (a) that the Tender Inviting Authority has created artificial barriers through eligibility conditions to accommodate only the respondents 4 to 7, and the said conditions have created a cartelization; and

                     (b) that the administrative actions of the TWAD Board are contrary to the object of the Rules, which is to provide transparency in the public procurement and to regulate the procedure in inviting and accepting tenders.

                     (i) State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222];

                     (ii) Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida and others [2011 (6) SCC 508];

                     (iii) Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited Vs. RDS Porject Limited [2013 (1) SCC 524]; and

                     (iv) Union of India Vs. Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd [1993 (3) SCC 499].

4. Per contra, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General, appearing for the TWAD Board, would submit that there were 111 qualified bidders who had participated in the impugned tender, and therefore, it is not correct to state that the tender conditions were framed tailor-made only to enable the chosen persons to participate in the bid. He would further submit that it is not correct to state that due to mismatch between the Chartered Accountant Certificates and the GST returns of the bidders, the bids of the successful bidders ought not to have been accepted. He would submit that, in many cases, the bidders may not have received the entire payment, and therefore, the GST is payable only on the amount received by the bidders. Hence, according to him, in all the cases, there is a mismatch between the Chartered Accountant Certificates and the GST returns submitted by the bidders.

5. The learned Advocate General would also submit that it is incorrect to state that the prohibition of the joint venture in the tender conditions has been incorporated only to satisfy certain bidders chosen by the Tender Inviting Authority, and therefore, it prevents wider participation, which is not in public interest. He would submit that there were 111 qualified bidders who had participated in the impugned tender, and therefore, the contentions of the learned Senior counsels for the respective bidders that the tender conditions have been tailor-made for the chosen bidders, are unjustified.

6. The learned Advocate General also drew the attention of this Court to Rule 20(2) of the Rules, and would submit that only by following the due procedure contemplated under the said rule, the time for the submission of bids was reduced to a 15-day period instead of 30-day period, by getting approval from the superior authority. He also drew the attention of this Court to the typed set of papers filed by the TWAD board, and more particularly, he relied upon the communication sent by the Tender Inviting Authority to the Managing Director of the TWAD Board dated 16.12.2025 requesting him to grant approval for reducing the time limit for the submission of bids. He also drew the attention of this Court to the reply sent by the Managing Director of the TWAD Board dated 16.12.2025 granting approval for the Tender Inviting Authority to reduce the time limit for the submission of bids by the respective bidders. Therefore, he would submit that Rule 20(2) of the Rules has been strictly adhered to by the Tender Inviting Authority, as the superior authority, namely, Managing Director of the TWAD Board has granted approval for reducing the time limit for the submission of bids. Therefore, according to him, the Tender Inviting Authority has not violated Rule 20(1) of the Rules in reducing the time limit for the submission of bids from the 30-day period to a 15-day period.

7. The learned Advocate General would also submit that the work experience requirement of the bidders for participating in the tender process has been introduced in the tender conditions only in public interest. He would also submit that only to ensure that reliable persons alone participate in the tender, such a condition was introduced. He would also submit that it would suffice if a bidder is having an aggregate experience in the last 5 years by being a contractor with any other authority, and it is not necessary that the said bidder should have been a contractor with the TWAD Board alone. He would also submit that in the alternative, if the petitioners are unable to satisfy the work experience requirement, they will have to satisfy the Tender Inviting Authority that they had satisfied the construction requirements as provided under Clause 4.1of the Tender Conditions. Therefore, according to him, it is not correct to state that the work experience requirement of the bidder stipulated in the tender conditions are tailor-made only for the chosen bidders of the Tender Inviting Authority.

8. The learned Advocate General would also submit that providing water to the public by the State is in public interest, and therefore, if the impugned tender is interfered with by this Court, public interest will suffer. Since no violation has been committed by the TWAD Board in awarding contract to the respondents 4 to 7, the question of interference by this Court in the impugned tender does not arise. He would further submit that none of the petitioners are eligible to participate in the impugned tender, and therefore, rightly, the Tender Inviting Authority had not allowed them to submit their bids.

9. The learned Advocate General also drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities:-

                     (a) Association of Registration Plates Vs. Union of India and others [2005 (1) SCC 679]. He relied upon this judgment in support of his contentions that the tender conditions incorporating certain level of experience and period of contract do not violate Articles 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution of India;

                     (b) I-Net Secure Labs Pvt Ltd. Vs. Election Commission of Inida [2026 (2) CTC 399]. He relied upon this judgment in support of his contention that unless the petitioners are able to demonstrate that the tender conditions are arbitrary and malafide actuated by bias or lack of rational nexus to the objective or it violates the level playing principles, the judicial review is legally impermissible.

                     (c) Uflex Limited Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others [2022 (1) SCC 165]. He relied upon this judgment in support of his contentions that the purpose of judicial review in tender matters is only to check whether the choice of decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice of decision is sound.

10. Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the private respondents, who are the successful bidders, adopts the arguments of the learned Advocate General. In addition to the same, he would submit as follows:-

                     (a) The petitioners are not qualified to participate in the tender process and therefore, they lack the locus-standi to file these writ petitions.

                     (b) The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and it is not in public interest. The State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs, and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Government is expected to work.

                     (c) The petitioners are aggrieved due to the changes brought in the conditions of contract such as refusal of permission for “joint venture”, “raising minimum annual turnover for bidders” and “raising minimum aggregate number of the successfully completed works”. Since they will fall in the ineligible category, they have chosen an indirect way to stall the tender process.

                     (d) These writ petitions are not maintainable, since the petitioners have not challenged the TWAD board’s proceedings in B.P.Ms.No.90, Operation and Maintenance Wing, dated 15.12.2025, through which, approval was granted for revising the terms and conditions of the tender.

                     (e) Judicial review in tender matters is very limited and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again, has held that Court should not interfere with the tender conditions unless and until it is arbitrary and irrational. The revised tender conditions are not arbitrary and irrational, and therefore, the question of interference by this Court with the impugned tender does not arise.

                     (f) A tender ought to be challenged at the earliest point of time. As seen from the writ petitions filed before this Court, they have been filed one after another and they have not been filed at the earliest point of time. In many cases, work order has already been issued by the employer (TWAD Board).

                     (g) The delay in executing the work as per the work orders due to the pendency of these writ petitions will not be in public interest, and if the tender is interfered at this belated stage, it will be a loss to the public exchequer, and it will also affect public interest, since the services to be provided by the successful bidders are to provide drinking water facility to the public.

11. Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the private respondents also drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities.

                     (a) Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India [1994 (6) SCC 651];

                     (b) M/s.Michigan Rubber (I) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and others [2012 (8) SCC 216];

                     (c) Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and another [2016 (16) SCC 818].

He relied upon the aforesaid decisions to reiterate the limited scope of the judicial review in tender matters.

DISCUSSION:-

12. The bone of contention of the respective petitioners is with regard to the eligibility conditions of the tender. According to them, the eligibility conditions have been arbitrarily enhanced when compared to that of the previous years only to accommodate the existing contractors and to exclude the petitioners and similarly placed contractors from participating in the tender. Therefore, according to the petitioners, it is opposed to the doctrine of level playing field. The petitioners have also challenged the reduction in the time limit for the submission of bids from the 30-day period as prescribed under Rule 20(1) of the Rules to a 15-day period. According to them, the tender period has been reduced without following the due procedure as contemplated under Rule 20(2) of the Rules.

13. To decide the issue on hand, this Court will have to first analyse the power of judicial review in tender matters as decided by the Constitutional Courts. The decisions relied upon both on the side of the petitioners as well as the respondents make it clear that there cannot be judicial review in tender/commercial matters unless a clear cut case of arbitrariness, malafide, bias or irrationality is made out.

14. One must remember that today, many public sector undertakings compete with private industries. The contracts entered into between the private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the Bodies, which are State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are bound to act fairly and are amenable to writ jurisdiction of constitutional courts. But, this discretionary power must be exercised with great deal of restraint and caution.

15. The Courts must realise their limitations and havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues, the courts should be even more reluctant, because, the courts do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon the technical issues which are beyond the courts domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the Government and Public Sector Undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.

16. As seen from the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsels and the learned Advocate General, it is clear that writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer with respect to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer, unless something very gross or a palpable mistake is established, which will conclusively prove arbitrariness, malafide, bias or irrationality on the part of the employer.

17. The Court ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. To set at naught the entire tender process at the stage when the contract is well underway would not be in public interest. Initiating a fresh tender process when the contract has already been awarded and is well underway may consume lot of time and also cause huge losses to the public exchequer. The financial burden/implications on the public exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice should be one of the guiding factors that the court should keep in mind while dealing with challenge to tenders.

18. The tender inviting authority’s interpretation of its own tender conditions cannot be so second–guessed by a court unless it is arbitrary, perverse or malafide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decisions has repeatedly held that judicial review in tender matters will have to be considered with utmost judicial restraint. In tender matters, what is reviewed by the court is not the decision itself, but the manner in which it was made. The writ court does not have the expertise to correct the decision of the Tender Inviting Authority by substituting its own decisions.

19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that tender inviting authority, which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender document, is the best judge to decide as to how the tender document has to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible, then the interpretation of the author must be accepted.

20. It has been consistently held by the constitutional courts that bidders cannot challenge terms that do not suit them provided the conditions are not arbitrary or malafide. It has also been made clear that challenge to tender conditions should be made before submission of the bids, not after the outcome is known. Courts have a limited role in reviewing tender conditions and usually interfere only in case of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or bias. A challenge might be permitted if the bidder can prove that the conditions are malafide and are tailor-made to suit a specific party or it is inherently illegal. The decisions of the constitutional courts also make it clear that a tenderer cannot be allowed to challenge a bid clause, simply because it is inconvenient to them, as this would violate the principles of fairness in commercial transactions.

21. An ineligible or non-participating party generally lacks the standing to challenge the tender conditions, especially when numerous qualified bidders exist. The constitutional courts have consistently held that owners or the authorities initiating tenders have the freedom to set eligibility criteria, and tender conditions cannot be tailor-made to suit ineligible parties. Tender terms are not open to judicial scrutiny unless they are arbitrary or malafide. Courts hold limited role in reviewing the tender conditions as the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. When numerous bidders are found to be qualified, it underscores that tender conditions are reasonable and not designed to restrict competition. Tender conditions cannot be modified after bids are opened protecting sanctity of the bidding process. The focus of the court hearing challenge to tender matters is to ensure that tender process is fair, equitable and not to interfere with the reasonable requirements set by the tender issuing authority.

22. A level playing field in tender matters ensures that equally placed bidders have an equal opportunity to compete, preventing arbitrary, discriminatory, or tailor-made conditions that violate constitutional rights (Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India). Tendering authorities must encourage wider participation, as artificial barriers restrict eligibility, unjustly exclude qualified participants and violate fair competition principles. The doctrine of level playing field will be violated under the following conditions.

                     (a) Drafting technical specifications to suit a particular vendor.

                     (b) Mandating past experience only in the same State/District which restricts broader competition, and cancelling tenders without valid, bonafide public interest and reasons.

The doctrine of level playing field ensures that public procurement is transparent and competitive, focussing on quality and price rather than artificial barriers that favour a specific entity.

23. In the case on hand, none of the petitioners are eligible to participate in the impugned tender as they have admittedly not satisfied the experience requirements stipulated under the tender conditions for participating in the tender.

24. These writ petitions have also been filed one after another, and only one writ petition was filed before the deadline date for the submission of bids as per the tender conditions, but, however, the remaining writ petitions have been filed subsequent to the date of the deadline fixed under the tender conditions for the submission of bids. In many cases, work orders have already been issued by the TWAD Board to the successful bidders, and only thereafter, the writ petitions were filed. As per the eligibility criteria fixed under the tender conditions, there are several qualified bidders, even according to the petitioners, though the numbers as claimed by the TWAD Board are disputed by the petitioners. The contentions of the TWAD Board that the eligibility criteria was revised only in public interest for the smooth execution of the contract, are also not disproved by the petitioners by producing any clinching evidence in respect of their contentions that eligibility criteria has been revised tailor-made for the bidders specifically chosen by the Tender Inviting Authority (TWAD Board).

25. The reason for the mismatch between the Chartered Accountant Certificates and the GST returns submitted by the successful bidders has been adequately explained by the TWAD Board, through the submissions made by the learned Advocate General, who had submitted that mismatch is on account of the reasons that the successful bidder may not have recovered the bill amount from the employer and that GST is payable only based on the actual receipts. The very same discrepancy between the Chartered Accountant Certificates and GST returns is also found in the petitioners’ case as well. Therefore, the petitioners cannot raise such a ground by challenging the impugned tender as any petitioner seeking relief from this Court must also come with clean hands and they cannot pick the holes in the successful bidders' tender documents when their own tender documents reveal the same discrepancy.

26. While deciding the judicial review of a tender, this Court need not make a roving enquiry with regard to each and every minute detail of the tender, and if such an exercise is done, public interest will be affected as it will derail the tender process. Judicial review of tender matters is strictly limited with Courts consistently maintaining that they should not interfere with minute discrepancy, procedural aberrations or minor technical deviations. The Courts advise on the decision making process rather than merits of the decision adhering to the principles of judicial restraint to avoid increasing costs. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. Tender Inviting Authorities are permitted to accept “substantial compliance” rather than literal or strict compliance with every minor term, provided the essential terms are met. Minor deviations that do not cause substantial prejudice or affect the fairness of the tender process are generally overlooked, if a discrepancy is truly minute and does not violate essential conditions of the tender, and the courts will uphold the authorities’ decision to accept the bid. The guiding principle is to ensure transparency without paralysing administrative efficiency. In order to prove that tender is tailor-made for chosen bidders, the party challenging the tender should demonstrate that the eligibility criteria, specifications or financial requirements are designed specifically to favour a particular bidder to the exclusion of others, thereby violating the doctrine of level playing field.

27. The contentions of the respective petitioners as raised in all these writ petitions have to be rejected by this Court for the following reasons:-

                     (a) The time limit has been reduced for the submission of bids only after getting the approval from the superior authority, namely, the Managing Director of the TWAD Board. The approval was granted by the Managing Director to reduce the time limit for the submission of bids through his letter of approval dated 16.12.2025 sent to the Tender Inviting Authority. The reason for reducing the time limit for the submission of bids, namely, the coming into effect of the Model Code of Conduct due to ensuing Assembly Elections, and that too for a project involving distribution of water to the public, is an adequate reason satisfying the requirement of Rule 20(2) of the Rules for reducing the time limit for the submission of bids from the 30-day period to a 15-day period.

                     (b) The decision relied upon by the learned Senior counsels for the respective petitioners in Sri Venkatram Spinners (cited supra) was not a case involving the distribution of water to the public, and it was involving a nonessential item. Therefore, the said decision has no applicability to the facts of the instant case.

                     (c) If the Tender Inviting Authority is directed to approach the Election Commission and seek permission to proceed with the tender, public interest will be affected as the public will suffer on account of the delayed supply of water by the TWAD Board.

                     (d) The respective petitioners have not produced any clinching evidence before this Court to prove that the tender conditions were enhanced only to prevent the petitioners from participating in the tender and were tailor-made only to award a contract to the private respondents.

                     (e) Even according to the petitioners, as seen from the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsels for the respective petitioners, 33 qualified bidders were eligible to participate in the impugned tender. Therefore, incorporating certain level of experience and period of contract in the tender conditions do not violate Articles 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution of India. Association of Registration Plates’ case (cited supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate General squarely applies to the facts of the instant case.

                     (f) The petitioners have failed to establish before this Court that Tender Inviting Authority had incorporated eligibility conditions in tender only to suit the private respondents who are the successful bidders. The eligibility requirements enhanced by the Tender Inviting Authority under the tender conditions, which prevent the petitioners from participating in the tender, does not restrict broader competition as there were 33 qualified parties who are eligible to participate in the tender. The cancellation of the impugned tender, without valid and bonafide public interest by this Court, will lead to serious ramifications greatly affecting public interest by the delayed supply of water by the TWAD Board.

                     (g) The petitioners have not been able to prove before this Court that doctrine of level playing field has been violated by the Tender Inviting Authority (TWAD Board).

                     (h) The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the tender conditions are arbitrary and malafide actuated by bias or lack of rational nexus to the objective or it violates the level playing principles. Hence, judicial review is legally impermissible. I-Net Secure Labs’ case (cited supra) makes it clear that only when the petitioners are able to demonstrate that the tender conditions are arbitrary and malafide actuated by bias or lack of rational nexus to the objective or it violates the level playing principles, judicial review is permissible.

                     (i) The purpose of judicial review in tender matters is only to check whether the choice of decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice of decision is sound. In the case on hand, there is no evidence produced by the petitioners to prove that Tender Inviting Authority had decided the tender unlawfully to prevent the petitioners from participating in the tender.

                     (j) Since the eligibility criteria fixed by the Tender Inviting Authority (TWAD Board) cannot be faulted, the petitioners who are ineligible have no locus standi to file these writ petitions challenging the impugned tender.

                     (k) When the petitioners themselves have admitted that there were 33 qualified bidders, it underscores that the tender conditions are reasonable and not designed to restrict competition as pleaded by the petitioners in these writ petitions.

                     (l) While deciding the judicial review of a tender, this Court need not make a roving enquiry with regard to each and every minute detail of the tender, and if such an exercise is done, public interest will be affected as it will derail the tender process. The judicial review of tender matters is strictly limited with courts consistently maintaining that they should not interfere with minute discrepancy, procedural aberrations or minor technical deviations. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. Minor deviations that do not cause substantial prejudice or affect the fairness of the tender process are generally overlooked, if a discrepancy is truly minute and does not violate essential conditions of the tender, and the courts will uphold the authorities’ decision to accept the bid.

                     (m) The reason for the mismatch between the Chartered Accountant Certificates and the GST returns has also been explained by the learned Advocate General appearing for the TWAD Board. The very same discrepancy is also found in the petitioners’ income statements. Therefore, the question of interfering with the tender process on that ground by this Court by conducting a roving enquiry over the same, will not be in public interest, as the ultimate objective of supplying water to the public through the successful bidders will get defeated.

28. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions, and accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.