B And G Hydro Private Limited v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.01.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN B&G Hydro Private Limited Rep.by its Authrized Signatory Having registered office at New No.25, Old No.10, Sir Madhavan Nair Road Mahalingapuram, Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034 :

Appellant versus 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary, Energy Dept Fort St. George, Chennai 9 2.Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Ltd 144, Anna Salai NPKRR Maaligai, Chennai 2.

3.PPN Power Generating Company Pvt. Ltd No.1-A, Jhaver Plaza, Third Floor Nungambakkam High Road Nungambakkam, Chennai 34 :

Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed against the order of this Court dated 16.12.2025 in W.P.No.44675 of 2025.

For Appellant :

Mr.Abishek Jenasenan For Respondents :

Mr.E.Vijay Anand, A.G.P., for R-1

Mr.K.Arun Prasad, for the second respondent

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This appeal arises out of an order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, in the matter of challenge to the bidding process.

2. The writ petition was filed challenging the bidding process adopted by the respondents. Case of the appellant, as raised in the writ petition, was that without first undertaking the technical evaluation process, further bidding process ought not to have been taken recourse to. It, however, did not find favour and the writ petition was dismissed. As a subsequent development, during the pendency of the writ petition, and on the date on which this writ appeal was filed, the other bidder has walked out of the bidding process, leaving the appellant as the only bidder. The appellant has already given his offer.

3. However, learned counsel for the appellant would now submit that in view of the changed circumstances, the respondents be directed to consider the subsequent developments and the policy

conditions, so as to allow the appellant to revise its bid.

4. The issue, as was raised by filing the writ petition, and which came to be decided by the learned Single Judge, against which this appeal has been filed, no longer subsists, and is rendered academic.

5. The appellant's prayer at this stage that the bid which he has offered should be allowed to be revised, cannot be allowed by this Court.

6. Challenge made by the appellant in the writ petition was entirely different. However, the appellant seeks revision of his bid. It is for him to take remedy as may be available to him under the law. Leaving the appellant to work out such remedy as may be available to him under the law, this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP Nos.650 and 652 of 2026 are closed. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 19.01.2026 Index : Yes/No tar

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G. ARUL MURUGAN , J.

(tar) To 1.The Secretary Energy Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9 2.Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Ltd 144, Anna Salai NPKRR Maaligai, Chennai 2.

3.PPN Power Generating Company Pvt. Ltd No.1-A, Jhaver Plaza, Third Floor Nungambakkam High Road Nungambakkam, Chennai 34 19.01.2026