Sri Sai And Co Constructions v. The Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W .P(MD)No.23483 of 2025 and WMP(MD)Nos.18451,18455, 18458 and 18459 of 2025 Sri Sai & Co. Constructions, Rep. By its Managing Director, K.Manoharan : Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department Building, Panagal Maligai, 4th & 5th Floor, Abdul Razzak Street, Saidapet, Chennai.
2.The District Collector/Chairman, Appellate Committee, Office of the Collectorate, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Collector, (Dev)/Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, District Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Ramanathapuram.
4.The Block Development Officer, Thiruppullani Block, Thiruppullani Union, Ramanathapuram District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in JDO/640/2025-26, dated 14/08/2025 and quash the same 1/10
and consequently, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the tender process and pass such other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasundarvijayaraj For Respondents : Mr.A.Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General-I Assisted by Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate
O R D E R
This writ petition is being disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General-I appearing for the respondents.
2.The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 14/08/2025 passed by the second respondent District Collector/Chairman/Appellate Committee, who constituted as an Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998.
3.The petitioner's bid was earlier rejected after technical evaluation based on the site inspection of the equipments that was cited by the petitioner in the bid made by the petitioner in response to the tender 2/10
notification, dated 30/05/2022 for package No.TN14-71R. Since the petitioner's bid was rejected by the Tender Evaluation Committee on 19/06/2025, the petitioner challenged the same by way of writ petition before this Court in WP(MD)No.17148 of 2025. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 24/06/2025 by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. Liberty was also given to the petitioner to move appropriate application for interim relief by filing interlocutory application.
4.It is, in this background, the impugned order has been passed by the 2nd respondent as an appellate authority. Operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:- 3/10
4/10
5/10
5.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's appeal has been unfairly rejected by the second respondent as an Appellate Authority under section 11 of the aforesaid Act, without considering the submission of the petitioner.
6.On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would submit that the writ petition is devoid of merits, as there are consecutive findings not only by the Tender Evaluation Committee on 19/06/2025, but also by the Appellate Authority, wherein the petitioner's contention has been rejected. It is, therefore, submitted that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General-I appearing for the respondents.
8.I am of the considered view, there is no merits in this writ petition as the second respondent as an Appellate Authority under section 11 of the Tamil Nadu 6/10
Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 has considered the submission of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. 9.In fact, the order records that the petitioner has not produced any records to submit that the petitioner has required equipments for carrying on the work in respect of which the petitioner made a bid in the last week i.e., on 16/06/2025. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court against the order of the second respondent as an Appellate Authority. That apart, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited in the matters of tender. Unless there is an arbitrariness, which is violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the scope of interference is limited. In this case, the petitioner is not able to demonstrate any procedural irregularity committed by the second respondent as an Appellate Authority.
That apart, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is required to look into only procedural irregularity in passing the impugned order and not taking the decision unreasonable which the person was made. The Court is not really concern with the decision making process.
7/10
10.As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Mehar Din reported in (2022)5 SCC 648, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
28/08/2025 Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No NCC : Yes/No er 8/10
To, 1.The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department Building, Panagal Maligai, 4th & 5th Floor, Abdul Razzak Street, Saidapet, Chennai.
2.The District Collector/Chairman, Appellate Committee, Office of the Collectorate, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Collector, (Dev)/Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, District Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Ramanathapuram.
4.The Block Development Officer, Thiruppullani Block, Thiruppullani Union, Ramanathapuram District.
5.The Government Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
9/10
C.SARAVANAN,J er 28/08/2025 10/10