W.P.No.4625 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 20.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

W.P.No. 4625 of 2026

&

W.M.P.Nos. 5147, 5152 & 5155 of 2026

Subaya Construction Company Ltd.

Represented by its Director S. Chandragandhimathi

No. 21 (Old No. 26), Soundarapandian Street,

Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. ...Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner,

Mangadu Municipality,

No 5, Vaigundaperumal Koil Street,

Mangadu,

Chennai 600 122. ...respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of

India for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the

records of the respondent in the impugned order dated 04.02.2026

relating to the works of "Providing Comprehensive Underground

Sewerage Scheme to Mangadu Municipality - Tender Ref No

3141/2025/E1 bearing Tender ID No 2025_MAWS_589498_l and

1/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

QUASH the same and consequently direct the respondent to open the

price bid of the petitioner in respect of the works related to "Providing

Comprehensive Underground Sewerage Scheme to Mangadu

Municipality - Contract No 3141/2025/E1 vide Tender Notification

dated 30.01.2025" and process the same in accordance with law.

For Petitioner:Mr. S.R.Rajagopal

Senior Counsel

For Mr. P.J.Rishikesh

For respondents:Mr. M.Suresh Kumar

Additional Advocate General

Assisted by

Mr. V.Jeevagiridharan

Additional Government Pleader.

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“To call for the records of the respondent in the

impugned order dated 04.02.2026 relating to the works of

"Providing Comprehensive Underground Sewerage Scheme

to Mangadu Municipality - Tender Ref No 3141/2025/E1

bearing Tender ID No 2025_MAWS_589498_l and QUASH

the same and consequently direct the respondent to open

2/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

the price bid of the petitioner in respect of the works

related to "Providing Comprehensive Underground

Sewerage Scheme to Mangadu Municipality - Contract No

3141/2025/E1 vide Tender Notification dated 30.01.2025"

and process the same in accordance with law”

2. The case of the petitioner is that they are a reputed Class I

contractor with extensive experience in executing infrastructure

projects across the State of Tamil Nadu. The respondent municipality

which comes within the Kancheepuram District, had floated a tender

for works related to “Providing Comprehensive Underground Sewerage

Scheme to the Mangadu Municipality” vide Tender Notification dated

30.01.2025.

3. The petitioner had submitted its technical and financial bids

fully satisfying the technical parameters on 31.10.2025. The petitioner

would submit that they had encountered certain problems with the

Salem City Municipal Corporation and they had attempted to

unlawfully disqualify the petitioner. The petitioner would also submit

3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

that they had arbitral claims before the Arbitral Tribunal against other

municipalities seeking to enforce their rights and dues. The petitioner

by way of abundant caution had sent a communication dated

12.12.2025, informing the respondent that if they entertained any doubt

they could seek clarification from the petitioner instead of summarily

rejecting the bid.

4. The respondent had addressed a letter dated 18.12.2025, to all

the bidders requesting submission of the Environment, Social, Health

and Safety (ESHS) methodology and the petitioner had submitted the

requisite documents on 22.12.2025. The petitioner had also filed a

series of RTI applications before the authorities under whom they had

worked enquiring if the respondent had made enquiries about the

petitioner’s track record with them. They were informed that the

authorities had already dispatched the “Genuineness Certificate” to the

respondent confirming the petitioner’s successful track record and their

expertise in the field.

4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

5. Along with the tender, the petitioner had also submitted a

detailed representation on 22.12.2025, setting out their credentials,

financial capability, ongoing works, bid capacity, litigation history and

legal standing. However, the petitioner received an e-mail from the

respondent about the purported “shortfall”, however, with no details of

the shortfall. The petitioner, while in their reply had asked for details

of the shortfall, had also enclosed the documents submitted along with

the tender once again. Thereafter, on 29.12.2025, the respondent had

addressed all the bidders seeking clarifications which was also provided

by the petitioner vide letter dated 04.01.2026. This was followed by a

letter dated 21.01.2026 stating that the petitioner had failed to furnish

the litigation history. In their reply dated 23.01.2026, the petitioner

highlighted the fact that the same formed a part of their documents.

They also clarified the matters regarding the old litigation particularly

the dispute with Salem Municipality. However, to the petitioner’s

shock by a communication dated 04.02.2026 that was posted in the

official website the remarks against the petitioner’s bid was “Rejected

Technical” and “"Not Responsive"”. The communication stated that

5/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

the financial bid would be opened on 04.02.2026.

6. The petitioner vide their e-mail dated 04.02.2026, had raised

strong objections to the impugned communication and challenging the

same the petitioner is before this Court.

7. The respondent would counter the allegations made by the

petitioner by contending that the petitioner had been declared “Non-

Responsive” as the petitioner had violated the provisions of Clause 4 (i)

of the Bid document, which made it mandatory for all the bidders to

disclose information regarding litigation or arbitration resulting from

contracts executed by the bidders in the last eight years or currently

under execution. The respondent’s contention is that the Clause

required disclosure of the names of parties concerned, disputed amount,

cause of litigation and matter in dispute. The petitioner who had a total

of 33 litigations pending had only disclosed 19 of them in their

technical bid and it was only from the further communications with the

petitioner that the respondent had come to know about the same.

Therefore, the petitioner had suppressed 14 litigations, which is a

6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

substantial portion of the litigations. Further, the respondent had

received an e-mail from other urban local bodies like Vellore and

Trichy that there were 2 litigations pending against the petitioner which

were not disclosed. These litigations arose only of contracts executed

by the petitioner and squarely fall within the mandate of Clause 4 (i).

8. The respondent quoting Clause 26 of the Bid document would

contend that the suppression of the litigation history rendered the

petitioner’s bid as Non-Responsive and prayed for the dismissal of the

writ petition.

9. Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General made elaborate

submissions on Clauses 4 (i), 25, 26, exchange of correspondence

between the parties and provisions the Tamil Nadu Transparency In

Tender Act and the Rules.

10. From the aforesaid arguments, it would be necessary to

extract the relevant Clauses of the Bid document.

7/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

“4 (i)-Information regarding any litigation or

arbitration resulting from contracts executed by the Bidder

in the last eight years or currently under execution. The

information shall include the names of the parties

concerned, the disputed amount, cause of litigation, and

matter in dispute;

26-Examination of Bids and Determination

of Responsiveness

Prior to the detailed evaluation of Bids, the

Employer will determine whether each Bid (a) meets the

eligibility criteria defined in Clause 3; (b) has been

properly digitally signed using DSC token including

document uploaded by Mangadu Municipality; (c) is

accompanied by the required securities and; (d) is

substantially responsive to the requirements of the Bidding

documents

A substantially responsive Bid is one which conforms

to all the terms, conditions and specifications of the

8/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

Bidding documents, without material deviation or

reservation. A material deviation or reservation is one (a)

which affects in any substantial way the scope, quality, or

performance of the works; (b) which limits in any

substantial way, inconsistent with the Bidding documents,

the Employer's rights or the Bidder's obligations under the

Contract; or (c) whose rectification would affect unfairly

the competitive position of other Bidders presenting

substantially responsive Bids.

If a Bid is not substantially responsive, it will be

rejected by the Employer, and may not subsequently be

made responsive by correction or withdrawal of the non-

conforming deviation or reservation.

In evaluating the Bids, the Employer will determine

for each Bid the evaluated Bid Price by adjusting the Bid

Price as follows: (a)making any correction for errors

pursuant to Clause 27;

9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

37-Corrupt or Fraudulent Practices

The Employer requires that Bidders observe the

highest standard of ethics during the evaluation and

execution of such contracts. In pursuance of this policy,

the Employer:

(a) defines, for the purposes of this provision, the

terms set forth below as follows:

(i)“corrupt practice” means the offering, giving,

receiving or soliciting of any thing of value to influence the

action of a public official in the evaluation process or in

contract execution; and

(ii)“fraudulent practice” means a misrepresentation

of facts in order to influence the evaluation process or the

execution of a contract to the detriment of the Employer

and includes collusive practice among Bidders (prior to or

after bid submission) designed to establish bid prices at

artificial non-competitive levels and to deprive the

Employer of the benefits of free and open competition.

10/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

11. From the counter affidavit and the arguments of the learned

Additional Advocate General, it is clear that the petitioner’s bid has

been declared "Not Responsive" only on the ground that the petitioner

has violated the mandate of Clause 4 (i) by not giving details of their

pending litigation / arbitration.

12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend

that as per Clause 4 (i) only those litigations / arbitration pertaining to

contracts executed eight years prior to the bid was required to be

disclosed. However, the learned Additional Advocate General would

interpret the Clause to mean litigation / arbitration pending in the last

eight years.

13. A reading of Clause 4 (i) extracted supra would indicate that

the information regarding litigation / arbitration should relate to

contracts executed by the petitioner in the last eight years and with

reference to contracts which are currently in operation. The use of the

adjective “resulting” gives rise to only such an interpretation as the

11/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

word “resulting” relates to the contract and not the litigation. In other

words, if the petitioner was facing a litigation or arbitral proceedings

from out of contracts from August 2017 such proceedings will fall

within Clause 4 (i). That the respondent has also understood Clause 4

(i) to mean so, is evident from a reading of paragraph No.5 of the

counter affidavit, where the respondent has stated as follows:

“5.I submit that as per Clause 4 (i) of the Bid

document, every bidder is mandatorily required to enclose

information regarding any litigation or arbitration

resulting from contracts executed by the bidder in the last

eight years or currently under execution. The clause

specifically requires disclosure of the names of parties

concerned, disputed amount, cause of litigation, and the

matter in dispute and it requires disclosure of all litigations

without exception.”

14. It is a time tested principle that the rule of literal constitution

has to be adopted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd., Vs. Girish Sriram Juneja and

12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

others – 2025 (5) SCC 209 observed as follows in paragraph No.196:

“196.It is axiomatic that while applying the Rule of

literal construction, the words of a statute are first

understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense, and

phrases and sentences are constructed according to their

grammatical meaning unless such construction leads to

absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in

the object of the statute to suggest the contrary Rule of

interpretation.”

15. They had also quoted from the privy council’s judgement in

paragraph No.199 as follows:

“199.In Corp of the City of Victoria Vs. Bishop of

Vancouver Island, (1921) AC 2 384 the celebrated

judgement, Lord Atkinson stated: “In the construction of

statutes, their words must be interpreted in their ordinary

grammatical sense, unless there be something in the

context or in the object of the statute in which they occur,

or in the circumstances in which they are used, to show

13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

that they were used in a special sense different from their

ordinary grammatical sense. The literal interpretation

leads to hardship, inconsistency or obstruct the

accomplishment of the object of the statute steps in. In

other words, the doctrine of purposive interpretation is

taken recourse to for the purpose of giving full effect to the

statutory provisions and the Courts must state what

meaning the statute should bear rather than rendering the

statute in nullity. A statute must be construed in such a

manner as to make it workable.”

16. In the case on hand the interpretation of Clause 4 (i) does not

lead to either hardship, inconsistency or defeats the working of the

clause or defeats the object sought to be made. The literal

interpretation of the clause does not result in any confession or

ambiguity.

17. It is therefore necessary to peruse the list of litigations that

have been provided by the petitioner in the “Explanatory role to

14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

pending litigation list” filed on 16.02.2026. Annexure I thereto is the

list of the 33 cases. A perusal of the above list would clearly show that

except for the 19 cases submitted along with the bid document all

others do not come within the purview of Clause 4 (i). Further, with

reference to the 14 cases which the respondent contends has been

omitted 5 cases have been disclosed in the original list, 4 cases had

concluded eight years back and 3 cases have ended in favour of the

petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is compliant with

Clause 4 (i)

18. The petitioner’s technical bid has been rejected on the ground

that it is “"Non Responsive"”. Sub – para 2 of Clause 26 describes

what a “Substantially responsive bid” as one which conforms to all the

terms conditions and specifications of the Bidding documents without

material deviation or reservation. In the light of the discussions supra it

is clear that the petitioner has confirmed to all that terms and conditions

and specifications of the Bidding documents. That apart, Sub – Para 2

qualifies what would amount to material deviation or reservation in the

following manner:

15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

(a)which would substantially affect the scope, quality

or performance of the works.

(b)limits on a substantial way, the employer’s rights

or the bidders obligation under the contract inconsistent

with the bidding document and

(c)the rectification of the bid would unfairly affect

the competitive position of other bidders who are

substantially responsive.

19. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that

petitioner’s bid on account of the non-disclosure as contemplated in

Clause 4 (i) is material deviation (b) supra as it affects the respondent’s

ability to assess the petitioner. Such an argument cannot be

countenanced since the petitioner has disclosed the litigations which

fall within Clause 4 (i) and available for scrutiny. Therefore, there is no

suppression on the part of the petitioner. Further no corrupt or

fraudulent practice as contemplated in Clause 37 can be attributed to

the petitioner.

16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

20. Rule 28 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules

2000 reads as follows:

“28.Initial Examination to determine substantial

responsiveness.

(1)The Tender Inviting Authority shall cause an

initial examination of the tenders submitted to be carried

out in order to determine their substantial responsiveness.

(2)The initial examination shall consider the

following factors, namely:

(a)Whether the tenderer meets the eligibility criteria

laid down in the tender documents;

(b)(i)Whether the crucial documents have been duly

signed;

(ii)Whether the documents have been authenticated

by digital signature, in the case of tenders submitted

through electronic mail in the designated website

(c)Whether the requisite earnest money deposit has

been furnished;

(d)Whether the tender is substantially responsive to

the technical specifications, commercial conditions set out

in the bidding documents including the testing of samples

where required.

(3)Tenders which on initial examination are found

not to be substantially responsive under any of the clauses

17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

under sub-rule (2) may be rejected by the Tender Accepting

Authority.”

21. Therefore, even on this ground the rejection of the petitioner’s

bid as "Non Responsive" cannot be sustained.

22. In fine, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated

04.02.2026 relating to the works of "Providing Comprehensive

Underground Sewerage Scheme to Mangadu Municipality - Tender Ref

No 3141/2025/E1 bearing Tender ID No 2025_MAWS_589498_l is

quashed and the respondent is directed to open the price bid submitted

by the petitioner and the contract awarded to the petitioner if they are to

be declared as Lowest One. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

20.02.2026

kan

18/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

To

The Commissioner,

Mangadu Municipality,

No 5, Vaigundaperumal Koil Street,

Mangadu,

Chennai 600 122.

19/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

P.T. ASHA, J

kan

W.P.No.4625 of 2026

20.02.2026

20/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis