S.Navaneethakrishnan vs. The District Collector

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner might have a genuine case but stated that evidence could not be appreciated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency of Tender Act, 1981. While the petitioner claimed the work had not commenced, the Court directed that this could be proven by shifting the burden of proof to the sixth respondent. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within 15 days from the receipt of the order. It was made clear that the sixth respondent must produce necessary documents, including GST invoices and e-way bills, to substantiate the purchase of paver blocks for the work. The respondents were also directed to endeavor to produce e-way challans, bills, and invoices to show the procurement of paver blocks by the sixth respondent. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the incorrect rejection of their bid but provided a procedural path for resolution.

Facts

The petitioner, S. Navaneethakrishnan, filed a writ petition challenging the technical evaluation report of a tender floated by the Thisayanvilai Spl. Gr. Town Panchayat on May 16, 2025. The petitioner's bid, along with another bidder's, was rejected, while the sixth respondent was selected. The petitioner contended that his bid was rejected due to political considerations and incorrect reasons, specifically the alleged non-submission of a financial turnover certificate certified by a Chartered Accountant and missing dates in a bank certificate regarding work capital. The petitioner also argued that the delay in communicating the rejection from June 4, 2025, to July 9, 2025, indicated an unfair exclusion attempt. The respondents stated that a work order was issued to the sixth respondent on July 10, 2025, and a substantial portion of the work was completed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid in the tender process was arbitrary and based on incorrect grounds, violating principles of fairness and transparency? 2. Whether the delay in communicating the rejection of the petitioner's bid prejudiced the petitioner and indicated an attempt to unfairly exclude them from the tender process? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection was based on incorrect assumptions regarding the submission of required documents, such as the financial turnover certificate. They contended that the failure to mention dates in the bank certificate should not have been a major reason for disqualification. The petitioner also submitted that the significant delay between bid opening and rejection communication suggested an unfair exclusion attempt. The petitioner claimed the work had not commenced, negating any impediment to challenging the tender. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents (Town Panchayat) submitted that the work order was issued to the sixth respondent on July 10, 2025, and a substantial portion of the work had already been completed.