M/S.Phoenix And Co. vs. The Principal Secretary TO Government

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Phoenix and Co., filed two writ petitions challenging work orders dated 14.03.2026 issued by the third respondent (Chief Engineer, TWAD Board) to respondents 6 and 7 (M/s KKS Constructions and D.R. Kamalesh respectively). These work orders were awarded pursuant to a tender notification for the operation and maintenance of Combined Water Supply Schemes in Theni District. The petitioner sought to quash these work orders and direct the respondents to re-issue the tender. It was brought to the Court's notice that similar writ petitions with identical grounds had been filed before the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court and were dismissed by a Coordinate Bench on 27.04.2026. Furthermore, the petitioner had also filed an appeal under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, challenging the same work orders.

Held

The Court held that no further adjudication was required in the present writ petitions. This was based on two key facts brought to its notice: firstly, that a Coordinate Bench of the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court had already dismissed similar writ petitions raising identical grounds on 27.04.2026, thereby upholding the validity of the tender conditions and the consequential work orders. Secondly, the petitioner had also preferred an appeal under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, challenging the same work orders prior to filing these writ petitions. Consequently, the Court found no survival of adjudication in the present writ petitions. The petitions were disposed of in terms of the order dated 27.04.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to work out their remedies, including challenging the aforesaid order if advised. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petitions are maintainable in light of a prior dismissal of identical writ petitions by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on the same grounds? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner is precluded from raising the same issues again, given the dismissal of similar petitions and the pendency of an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the work orders were illegal and sought their quashing. They argued for the re-issuance of the tender. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the petitioner regarding the maintainability or preclusion, but their prayer implies a challenge to the validity of the tender and work orders. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents brought to the Court's notice the dismissal of similar writ petitions by a Coordinate Bench of the Principal Bench of this Court on 27.04.2026, which upheld the validity of the tender conditions and consequential work orders. They also highlighted the petitioner's prior appeal under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, challenging the same work orders.