Sri Mariyammal Constructions vs. The Executive Engineer

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Mariyammal Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging the tender process for the construction of a storm water drain. The tender, floated by the Executive Engineer, Annavasal Town Panchayat, had an estimated value of Rs. 8.20 lakhs inclusive of GST. The petitioner and the second respondent, Santhi, were among the bidders. The second respondent was initially declared the successful bidder. However, the petitioner represented that the second respondent lacked the mandatory five years of experience in executing similar works. The first respondent (Executive Engineer) acknowledged this deficiency and decided to revoke the award of contract to the second respondent. The petitioner sought to be declared the successful bidder. The learned Government Advocate for the first respondent stated that the petitioner was the only technically qualified bidder, but argued that a single technically qualified bid could not be considered for award, and requested liberty to issue a fresh tender.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. The Court held that the impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2025, which declared the second respondent as the successful bidder, were liable to be set aside. This was primarily because the first respondent itself had taken a conscious decision to revoke the award of contract to the second respondent on the ground that the second respondent did not possess the requisite minimum experience of five years. The Court reasoned that once the ineligibility of the declared successful bidder was admitted and acted upon by the tendering authority, the initial declaration was rendered unsustainable. The Court did not declare the petitioner as the successful bidder, but instead, reserved liberty to the first respondent to issue a fresh tender notification for the same work in accordance with law. The Court found no reason to interfere with the first respondent's decision to re-tender, as awarding a contract based on a single technically qualified bid was not permissible. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned proceedings and permit a fresh tender process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2025, declaring the second respondent as the successful bidder, are liable to be quashed as illegal and arbitrary, considering the admitted ineligibility of the second respondent? (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the second respondent did not meet the eligibility criterion of possessing a minimum of five years of experience in executing similar works, which was a mandatory requirement. The petitioner contended that based on this ineligibility, the award of contract to the second respondent was illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, the petitioner, being the only other technically qualified bidder after the first respondent's own revocation decision, should be declared the successful bidder. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Government Advocate for the first respondent submitted that while the petitioner was the only technically qualified bidder after the second respondent's ineligibility was recognized, a contract could not be awarded based on a single technically qualified bid. The respondent requested liberty to issue a fresh tender notification for the same work.