Salma Begam v. General Manager - Lpg

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN W.A.(MD)No.65 of 2026 Salma Begam ... Appellant -vs1.General Manager - LPG, HPCL (South Zone), Thalamuthu Natarajan Building & Gandhi - Irwin Road, Chennai - 600 008.

2.Deputy General Manager (LPG - Distribution), HPCL (South Zone), Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, 8 Gandhi - Irwin Road, Chennai - 600 008.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent Act, praying to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed in W.P.(MD)No.25051 of 2025, on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.A.C.Namburaj

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.] Relying upon the guidelines issued by the MSME department for Public Procurement Policy, the appellant herein wanted her representation dated 09.09.2025, seeking correction to her bid amount which will match the L1 rate.

2.The learned Single Judge, considering Clause 3.7 of the tender notification, had dismissed the Writ Petition, since the said clause prohibits unsolicited revision of price bid and any type of such unsolicited revision will disqualify the tenderer.

3.In this case, the appellant has submitted the bid for LPG distributorship on 22.04.2025. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the bid was opened in the month of October 2025.

Thereafter, she has given a representation stating that by mistake the computer operator had mentioned 0% as bid price and therefore, she wants to offer her bid matching the L1, stating that Clause 3.7 of the tender document is contrary to the mandatory statutory right under the Public Procurement Policy for MSE Order, 2012.

4.The subject matter of tender is single bulk LPG transportation. Clause 3.7 specifically prohibits the unsolicited revision of price bid. The appellant cannot take advantage of the general rule meant for MSE, in case of bulk transport contract, where there is a specific bar for revision of bid. Therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition and we find no ground to interfere with the said order. 5.Hence, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 27.01.2026 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet:

Yes / No MR

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

MR W.A.(MD)No.65 of 2026 27.01.2026