(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to Tender No.MAR-TECH/GTTP-TUG/2025 dated 03.04.2025 and quash the decision of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 declaring the respondent No.3 as the L-1 bidder on the Government e-procurement system (GeM/CPPP) portal on 24.10.2025, and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to award the contract to the petitioner, who is the next eligible (L-2) bidder and thus justice.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in declaring the respondent No.3 as L-1 bidder on the Government E-Procurement System (GeM/CPPP) portal on 24.10.2025 and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to award the contract to the petitioner, who is the next eligible (L-2) bidder.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2. The second respondent herein had issued a notice inviting online tender on 03.04.2025 for hiring of Green Tug Transition Programme for a period of 15 year at V.O.Chidambaranar Port Authority. The last date and time for submission of the bid was fixed at 15.00 hours on 28.04.2025 which was extended up to 30.07.2025 at 3.00 p.m. The petitioner, third respondent and another tenderer have submitted their bid documents. The technical bid was opened on 19.08.2025.

3. The Tender Committee met on 29.08.2025 and observed that all the three tenderers have not submitted certain documents and decided to request them to submit their shortfall documents. Accordingly, a communication was addressed to all the tenderers to submit the shortfall documents on 03.09.2025 fixing 15.09.2025 as the deadline for submission of the documents.

4. On 21.10.2025, the second meeting of the tender was convened and they declared that the technical bid of all the tenderers have been accepted. On 22.10.2025, the petitioner herein has sent an E-mail to the Chief Vigilance Officer of the first respondent alleging that some bidders have submitted fake documents or they are otherwise disqualified. On the same date, the petitioner company received confirmation of the complaint and they requested to confirm his complaint and enclose the I.D proof issued by the Government for taking further course of action from their head office. On 23.10.2025, the petitioner company has confirmed the complaint and enclosed the identify proof.

5. On 23.10.2025, the technical bid results were published. All the three tenderers were declared to be qualified in the technical bid. The price bid was opened on 24.10.2025 wherein the third respondent was found to be L-1. The letter of intent was issued to the third respondent on 25.10.2025. On the same day, the petitioner company has lodged a protest and objection with regard to the technical qualification of the third respondent. This protest letter was addressed to the second respondent.

6. The present writ petition has been filed on 13.11.2025 challenging the declaration of the third respondent as L-1. The petitioner has quoted Rs.6,99,000/- as daily hire rate whereas the third respondent has quoted Rs.5,96,695/-. Therefore, admittedly the third respondent is L-1.

7. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the submissions made on the side of the writ petitioner clearly reveal that all the allegations pertain to technical qualification of the third respondent on the ground either they are not qualified or they have produced fake documents in order to achieve their qualification.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:

8. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has strenuously argued that several documents have been concocted to achieve the qualification. He had further submitted that after the last date for submission of the bid documents was over, the tenderers cannot be permitted or called upon to submit further documents and the same is clearly in violation of the tender condition. He questioned the experience certificate, site visit inspection certificate, satisfactory performance certificate as well as undertaking affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent.

9. The learned counsel had further submitted that one of the agreements which the third respondent company relied upon had come into existence after tender notification and it is a fabricated document. He further submitted that after the complaint was lodged before the Vigilance Committee, undue influence was shown by the respondents 1 and 2 in awarding the contract in favour of the third respondent.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions.

               (i).(2022) 6 SCC 127 (N.G.Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and others);

               (ii).(1969) 1 SCC 414 (Rashbihari Panda Vs.State of Orissa);

               (iii).(1979) 3 SCC 489 (Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and others);

               (iv).AIR 2025 SCC 1882 (State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya);

               (v).(2000) 5 SCC 287 (Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others);

               (vi) 2025 SCC Online SC 953 ( Sri Venkateswara Constructions Vs. State of Odisha and others);

               (vii) 2025 SCC Online SC 1959 (Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited Vs. Mandeepa Enterprises and others);

               (viii).2025 SCC Online Del 5354 (CCS Computers Private Limited Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and another);

               (ix).(2025) 1 SCC 392 (Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and another); and

               (x).(2024) 9 SCC 94 (Al-Can Export Private Limited Vs. Prestige H.M.Polycontainers Limited and others)

11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 had submitted that without challenging the declaration of the technical qualification of the third respondent, the present writ petition has been filed only challenging the price bid and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. He extensively relied upon the writ affidavit and contended that all the allegations relate to the technical qualification of the third respondent.

12. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 had further submitted that the Site Visit Inspection Certificate was uploaded by the third respondent. Only the letter of authorization and Aadhar Card were submitted later. He had further submitted that all the three tenderers were granted an opportunity to submit their shortfall documents. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance whatsoever. He had further stated that in view of the corrigendum, the structure of Form-XX modified and therefore, the third respondent was qualified.

13. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 had further submitted that the complaint lodged by the writ petitioner is dated 22.09.2025 and it was addressed only to the Vigilance Committee and nothing was addressed to the Tender Inviting Authority. He had further submitted that the work order has been issued and the work has commenced, belatedly, the present writ petition has been filed. He had also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127 (N.G.Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and others).

14. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent had submitted that all the three tenderers received equal opportunity and they were permitted to submit the shortfall documents. The seal that is found in the Experience Certificate is nothing but self-attestation seal and not as contended by the writ petitioner. He had further submitted that the petitioner company cannot raise the interpretation with regard to crafts and vessels in the tender condition while challenging the price bid. Hence, the respondent's counsel had prayed for dismissal of the writ petition

15. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records.

(C).Discussion:

16. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is to quash the declaration of the third respondent as L-1 and to declare the petitioner (L-2) as the successful bidder. The minutes of the second Tender Committee Meeting dated 24.10.2025 would clearly reveal that the third respondent has quoted Rs.1,00,000/- lesser than the writ petitioner as daily hire charges. Therefore, their cannot be any dispute whatsoever that the third respondent is L-1 and the writ petitioner is L-2. However, the price bid of the third respondent is sought to be set aside on the sole ground that the third respondent is not technically qualified or submitted documents which are fabricated.

17. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the last date for submission of the tender document is over, documents cannot be called for from the tenderers in order to achieve qualification. The minutes of the Tender Committee Meeting dated 29.08.2025 clearly reveals that the Committee has found shortfall documents from all the three tenderers. A communication has been addressed to all the tenderers on 03.09.2025 calling upon them to produce the shortfall of the documents on or before 15.09.2025. The petitioner has also submitted the documents pursuant to the letter dated 03.09.2025. The petitioner having been one of the beneficiaries of the irregular proceedings, cannot now turn around and contend that the documents submitted by the third respondent after the date of last date of tender ought not to have been accepted. The petitioner is estopped from contending so.

18. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the third respondent has produced fabricated documents and even otherwise they are not qualified as per the submitted documents. In order to consider this allegation, the petitioner should have challenged the order dated 23.10.2025 wherein the technical bid results were published. The petitioner having not chosen to challenge the technical bid results, cannot challenge the next stage of tender, namely the opening of the price bid, especially after the petitioner company was found to be L-2.

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even before the technical bid results were published, the petitioner company has lodged a complaint on 22.10.2025 to the Vigilance Cell. The perusal of the said complaint reveals that the allegations are made as against “some bidders”. The petitioner has not named any one of the bidders alleging that they are not qualified or produced fabricated documents. On the same day, the Vigilance Cell has called for the credentials from the writ petitioner and the same have been submitted by the petitioner on 23.10.2025. On the said date, the technical bid results were published. Even thereafter, the petitioner has not lodged his protest as regards the technical qualification of the third respondent. The petitioner company waited for the price bid to be opened on 24.10.2025. The petitioner company was declared as L-2 on 24.10.2025 and letter of intent was issued to the third respondent / L-1 on 25.10.2025. Only on 25.10.2025, for the first time, the petitioner company had lodged protest with regard to the acceptance of the technical bid of the third respondent. The present writ petition has been filed nearly after three weeks on 13.11.2025, challenging the acceptance of the price bid of the third respondent, without challenging the technical bid.

20. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, the complaint dated 22.10.2025 was not addressed to the first respondent or the second respondent. It was addressed to the Vigilance Cell and the said complaint is an independent proceedings. As pointed out supra, the complaint dated 22.10.2025 is vague without naming any one of the bidders. In such circumstances, the petitioner company cannot contend that, when the vigilance complaint is pending, the respondents 1 and 2 have acted in undue haste.

21. In view of the above said deliberations, it is clear that in the present writ petition, allegations have been raised with regard to the technical qualification of the third respondent without challenging the declaration of the technical qualification of the third respondent. Only the price bid is put to challenge in the present writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner is only L-2. Therefore, without a prayer for setting aside the declaration of the third respondent as technically qualified, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

(D).Conclusion:

22. In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.