Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement made on affidavit by the appellant that the difference in the financial bid submitted by the appellant and L1 is more than Rs.600 crore, we direct that respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall not issue work order till the next date of hearing. 4.          This order shall not come in the way of the respondent authorities in communicating the reasons for rejection of the technical bid of the appellant and, upon such communication, seeking early disposal of this appeal. List this appeal on 12.2.2026. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,CJ)      (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)                  03.02.2026       sasi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

W.A.No.284 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.2589 of 2026

Dilip Buildcon Limited

Rep. by Authorised Signatory,

Shubham Tyagi,

Plot No. 5, Inside Govind Narayan Singh Gate, Chuna Bhatti, Kolar Road, Bhopal – 462 016.

Appellant(s)

Vs

State of Tamil Nadu

Rep. by Secretary to the Government,

Highways and Minor Ports Department,

Chennai and 3 others

Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s): Mr.C.Manisankar, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Ashwin Kumar

For Respondent(s):Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General assisted by Ms.R.L.Karthika Government Advocate for R1 to R3

Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Vaibhav R. Venkatesh for R4

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)

Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission and stay.

2.          While the submission of Mr.Manisankar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, is that the non-disclosure of reasons for rejection of its technical bid way back on 24.12.2025 has deprived the appellant of availing judicial remedy, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, would submit that the communication would be sent at an appropriate stage contemplated under the law, as and when decision is taken to award contract to one of those who is technically responsive.

Learned Advocate General submits that presently negotiations are going on with the Lowest Bidder (L1).

3.          Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking

into consideration the statement made on affidavit by the appellant that the difference in the financial bid submitted by the appellant and L1 is more than Rs.600 crore, we direct that respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall not issue work order till the next date of hearing.

4.          This order shall not come in the way of the respondent authorities in communicating the reasons for rejection of the technical bid of the appellant and, upon such communication, seeking early disposal of this appeal.

List this appeal on 12.2.2026.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,CJ)      (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

                 03.02.2026

sasi