THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W. P.Nos.47251 and 48902 of 2025and W.M.P.Nos.52789, 52790, 54616, 54617, 54618 and 54310 of 2025 M/s.Fun World & Resorts India Pvt. Ltd., rep by its GPA Mr.U.Sivanarayanan, Palace Grounds (Opp to TV Towers),

2025:MHC:2960
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.12.2025
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W. P.Nos.47251 and 48902 of 2025and
W.M.P.Nos.52789, 52790, 54616, 54617, 54618 and 54310 of 2025
M/s.Fun World & Resorts India Pvt. Ltd., rep by its GPA Mr.U.Sivanarayanan, Palace Grounds (Opp to TV Towers),
J.C. Nagar, Bangalore-560 006. .. Petitioners in
both writ petitions
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture, Religious Endowments and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Tourism Development
Corporation, Fort St. George,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, No.2, Wallajah Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, No.2, Wallajah Salai, Chennai-600 002.
4.M/s.Mishri Medipoint Private Limited,
New No.2, Old No.78, 2nd Floor, 1st Main Road, Dhandeeswaran Nagar, Velachery, Chennai-600 042.
5.Mr.Peer Sameem .. Respondents in
W.P.No.47251 of 2025
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture, Religious Endowments and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Tourism Development
Corporation, Fort St. George,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, No.2, Wallajah Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, No.2, Wallajah Salai, Chennai-600 002.
4.Mr.Peer Sameem,
Prop: Peer Sameem Amusement and Entertainment,
No.8/2, Portuguese Church Street, 5th Lane,
Sevenwells, Chennai-600 001. .. Respondents in
W.P.No.48902 of 2025
W.P.No.47251 of 2025 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of the writ, directing the 2nd respondent to accept firm’s commercial bid submitted along with the E-tender application for conduct of 50th India Tourist and Industrial Fair 2026 at Island Grounds by rejecting the Technical bid of the 4th and 5th respondents who are ineligible to participate in the E-tender vide tender reference No.63/FS/2025/III dated 10.11.2025 bearing Notice Inviting Tender I.D. 2025_TTDCL_600238_1 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to follow the terms and conditions laid down in the said tender notification by invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000 and previous orders of this Hon’ble Court and to grant such further or other orders or other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
W.P.No.48902 of 2025 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orders, directions more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records pertaining to the impugned rejection order E-mail dated 01.12.2025 issued by the second respondent and quash the same by declaring the same as unsustainable in law and also against the principles of natural law and justice and consequently direct the second respondent to accept firm’s commercial bid submitted along with the E-Tender application for conduct of 50th India Tourist and Industrial Fair 2026 at Island Grounds by rejecting the technical bid of the 4th respondent who is ineligible to participate in the E-Tender vide Tender reference No.63/FS/2025/III dated 10.11.2025 bearing Notice inviting Tender I.D. 2025_TTDCL_622102_1 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to follow the terms and conditions laid down in the said tender notification by invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000 and previous orders of this Hon’ble Court and to grant such further or other orders or other reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijay Anand in both writ petitions
For Respondents : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, AGP for R-1 in both writ petitions
Mr.J.Ravindran, AAG assisted by Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman for RR2 and 3 in both writ petitions
Mr.C.Vigneswaran for R-4 in W.P.No.48902/25
Mr.C.Vigneswaran for Mr.G.Paramasivam for R-5 in W.P.No.47251 of 2025
– – – –
COMMON ORDER
The first writ petition, namely W.P.No.47251 of 2025, has been filed seeking a mandamus to second respondent, Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, to accept the petitioner’s bid and the e-Tender application and to reject the technical bid of 4th and 5th respondents and to follow the terms and conditions in the tender notification. The second writ petition, namely W.P.No.48902 of 2025 has been filed challenging the rejection order passed by the very same second respondent in respect of the same tender process. As both writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner in respect of the same tender process, these two writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
2.The brief facts of this case are the petitioner, M/s. Fun World & Resorts India Pvt. Ltd., established in 1995, is engaged in organizing fairs and exhibitions and has successfully conducted the India Tourist and Industrial Fair at Island Grounds, Chennai, on six occasions between 2012 and 2020 and has received appreciation from the respondents. For conducting the 50th India Tourist and Industrial Fair, 2026, the second respondent, by Tender Notification No.63/FS/2025 dated 03.09.2025, invited tenders for conducting the 50th India Tourist and Industrial Fair, 2026 at Island Grounds, Chennai. The tender notification was published in the Tamil dailies and in their official website. The petitioner downloaded the tender documents and submitted its bid on 26.11.2025, enclosing all requisite documents along with the Earnest Money Deposit and tender advance, strictly in accordance with the tender conditions, by submitting a single cover containing both the technical and financial bids within the prescribed time. The Tender Opening Committee, on 27.11.2025 at 1.19 p.m., opened the e-tender and found three bidders. The petitioner’s technical bid was opened and accepted after scrutiny of the documents. The petitioner was orally informed that the financial bid would be opened on 28.11.2025. However, no written or email intimation, as mandated under the tender conditions, was issued to the petitioner regarding the opening of the financial bid. The petitioner waited till
29.11.2025 and repeatedly attended the office of the second respondent. However, till 01.12.2025, the petitioner was never intimated and the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the financial bid and there is no written communication or formal order of rejection.
3.The petitioner alleges that the tender conditions were diluted to favour certain bidders and that the tender process was conducted in violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 29.11.2025 to the official respondents by speed post and email, requesting that its financial bid be opened and that the tender conditions be followed in letter and spirit. As no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.47251 of 2025, seeking directions as stated above. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner received an auto-generated email dated 01.12.2025 from the Government e-Procurement portal informing that its bid had been rejected at the technical evaluation stage on the ground of non-fulfilment of eligibility criteria, without prior notice or opportunity, though the technical bid had earlier been opened. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed W.P. No.48902 of 2025. Both writ petitions arise out of the same tender process and relate to the non-opening of the petitioner’s financial bid and the subsequent rejection of its bid, which are stated to be contrary to the prescribed tender procedure and governing statutory requirements.
4.The main contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that when the writ petitioner has filed the first respondent, namely W.P.No.47251 of 2025 in the morning of 01.12.2025 and served the copy to the other side, namely respondents, on the same day, the second respondent by way of the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 rejected the petitioner’s bid and the same has been done arbitrarily. Though in the online portal regarding tender summary reports, it was indicated that there were three technically qualified bidders, the petitioner’s bid was rejected on 01.12.2025 and the updation was done by one T.Prabakaran. It is seen that the scrutiny committee has not evaluated the tender and the rejection was also not communicated to the petitioner immediately. Though the rejection was made on the ground that each page of the bid document has not been signed digitally, according to the petitioner, the petitioner has signed the bid documents digitally which has been purposely shown as if he has not signed the documents. The further ground for rejection was that the petitioner has not submitted the Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2022-23 which is also found to be false. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire rejection has been done in an arbitrary manner and malafide is very much attached. When the first writ petition was moved on 01.12.2025, it is submitted by the other side that the award of contract has been done, but still it has not been done. Further, one of the tender conditions has been tailor made to suit the convenience of the successful bidder and to award him the work. It is further contended by the writ petitioner that the bid has been opened belatedly and the same also creates suspicion in the mind of the petitioner that the delay has been caused to benefit the others. The petitioner contends that the exclusion from the financial bid process and the subsequent rejection of its bid are vitiated by arbitrariness, lack of transparency and non-compliance with statutory and contractual obligations. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s bid is to be set aside.
5.In support of his submissions, Mr.M.Vijay Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has relied on State of Punjab and others Vs. Mehar Din reported in (2022) 5 SCC 648 to contend that the state or the authority is not bound to accept the highest tender of bid and the acceptance of the highest bid or highest bidder is always subject to conditions of holding public auction and the right of the highest bidder is always provisional to be examined in the context in different conditions in which the auction has been held. Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others reported in 2024 INSC 757 was relied on to say that the Government bodies / instrumentalities are expected to act in absolutely fair, reasonable and transparent manner, particularly in the

award of contracts for mega projects. Any element of arbitrariness or discrimination may lead to hampering of the entire project which would not be in the public interest.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2119 to the effect that the doctrine of level playing field requires that gates of competition be opened to all who are equally placed and if the tender condition operates as a closed door to outsiders and restricts the wider participation of bidders and restricts competition, the same is violative of Article 14 and also offends Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
7.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for official respondents submits that the first writ petition has been filed by the writ petition by suppressing the material facts as if his tender is pending for consideration, whereas on the same day, he was sent a communication by the authorities intimating the rejection of his tender. The communication clearly indicates that he was also made known to the rejection order on the same day. Therefore, the writ petitions were filed with some other motive to stall the entire contract work. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the petitioner’s bid has been rejected after proper scrutiny by the scrutiny committee on the ground that the petitioner did not sign in all pages of e-Tender documents digitally or it should be signed by his authorised signatory and he has not filed income tax returns for the assessment year 2022-23. Those conditions are essential conditions in the tender. When the petitioner has not followed those conditions and submitted the bid, the scrutiny committee has rightly rejected the same. Therefore, as a matter of right, the petitioner cannot challenge the rejection before this court when the effective alternate remedy is very much available under section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. Hence the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
8.The learned Additional Advocate General has relied on a decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Moksh Innovations Inc. Vs. State of U.P reported in 2021 SCC OnLine All 206 to say that it is settled by a long line of decisions by Hon’ble Supreme Court that a party having participated in the tender knowing that it was unsuccessful ordinarily cannot be permitted to challenge the conditions of tender as such after thought action on the part of the unsuccessful bidder is impermissible to be entertained by the Courts. He has also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Airport Authority of India Vs. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1334 with regard to tender terms and it was observed in the said decision that the Government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the courts would interfere and the courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical.
9.The learned Additional Advocate General has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Motors Limited Vs. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (Best) and others reported in (2023) 19 SCC 1 to contend that the courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause and the courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters.
10.This court has perused the entire materials available and has heard the submissions of both sides.
11.A e-Tender notice has been issued by the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited for organising the 50th India Tourist and Industrial Fair 2026 at Islands Grounds, Chennai for 70 days. The eTender bid submission starts from 04.09.2025, the pre-bid meeting date was fixed on 15.09.2025, the last date for submission of e-Tender was on 06.10.2025 and e-Tender technical bid opening was on 06.10.2025. The e-Tender financial bid opening will be intimated through official email to the technically qualified bidders only. If any tenderer wants to present during the bid opening, they should intimate through email to TTDC. The eligibility criteria has also been prescribed. The tenderer should have the experience of organizing an exhibition / fair / events for a period of 45 days in any one of the preceding five financial years, i.e., 2020-21, 202122, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 and it is also required to furnish a certificate for annual turnover from the practicing Chartered Accountant with registration number for the financial years. Further, documents pertaining to an average turnover of Rs.2 Crores in any three out of five financial years, i.e., 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 or a turnover of not less than Rs.3 crores in any of the current three financial years from 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 to be produced and the income tax filed details for the assessment year 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 to be produced. The aforesaid conditions are mandatory conditions.
12.According to the writ petitioner, vide Tender Summary Reports, dated 28.11.2025, the technical bid given by three bidders have been admitted as on 27.11.2025 at 01.19 PM. Having accepted the technical bid on 27.11.2025, till the date of filing the first writ petition, the petitioner was never intimated nor was his firm allowed to participate in the opening of financial bid. Therefore, the first writ petition has been filed seeking direction to second respondent to accept his firm’s commercial bid. The petitioner’s bid has been rejected on the ground that the Income Tax returns for the assessment year 2022-23 was not submitted and the petitioner has not signed all pages of the e-tender documents digitally and had signed only at the bid document alone.
13.It is the contention of the writ petitioner that the person who was successful in the bid also did not sign the documents digitally and it is only to show favoritism, the petitioner was non suited. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court has called for the original records from the official respondents to verify the same. A perusal of the original records indicates that the contention of the writ petitioner that the successful bidder, namely 5th respondent in W.P.No.47251 of 2025 has not signed digitally in all the e-tender documents found to be false and in fact, as on 26.11.2025, when the application was uploaded, all pages of the documents were digitally signed by the 5th respondent in W.P.No.47251 of 2025. Therefore the contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Similarly, the petitioner has not submitted the income tax returns for the assessment year 2022-23 and that only for the assessment years 2023-24 and 202425, the income tax returns have been produced. Therefore, when there are essential conditions prescribed for participating in the tender process, merely because the petitioner’s bid has been rejected, it cannot be complained that there is arbitrariness in tender process and that his bid has been rejected only to accommodate some body.
14.The other contention of the petitioner is that in the last year also, the same person has been accommodated and therefore, the malafide is apparent in the tender process. It is to be noted that, merely because the same person was successful bidder in the last tender also, malafide cannot be presumed. When the essential conditions in the tender was not followed while submitting the application, one cannot merely allege that there is mala fide in allotting the tender. As long as the malafide has not been established, as a matter of right, the tender process cannot be stalled at the instance of the writ petitioner. It is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Motors Limited supra that the courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. In paragraph 50 of the said judgment, it has been held as follows:
‘50. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is dutybound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges’ robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. (See Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India [Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020)
16 SCC 489] .) ‘
15.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd.
v. State of Karnataka reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 has held that the Government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the courts would interfere. The courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical and in paragraph 35, it has been held as follows:
‘35. As observed earlier, the Court would not normally interfere with the policy decision and in matters challenging the award of contract by the State or public authorities. In view of the above, the appellant has failed to establish that the same was contrary to public interest and beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonable. We are satisfied that to have the best of the equipment for the vehicles, which ply on road carrying passengers, the 2nd respondent thought it fit that the criteria for applying for tender for procuring tyres should be at a high standard and thought it fit that only those manufacturers who satisfy the eligibility criteria should be permitted to participate in the tender. As noted in various decisions, the Government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the courts would interfere. The courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. In the case on hand, we have already noted that taking into account various aspects including the safety of the passengers and public interest, CMG consisting of experienced persons, revised the tender conditions. We are satisfied that the said Committee had discussed the subject in detail and for specifying these two conditions regarding pre-qualification criteria and the evaluation criteria. On perusal of all the materials, we are satisfied that the impugned conditions do not, in any way, could be classified as arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. ‘
16.In Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways reported in (2021) 16 SCC 808, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that unless arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the tendering authority is alleged, the expert evaluation of a particular tender, particularly when it comes to technical evaluation, is not to be secondguessed by a writ court and the relevant paragraph in this regard is paragraph 18 and the same reads as follows:
‘18. Insofar as Condition 27 of the NIT prescribing work experience of at least 5 years of not less than the value of Rs 2 crores is concerned, suffice it to say that the expert body, being the Tender Opening Committee, consisting of four members, clearly found that this eligibility condition had been satisfied by the appellant before us. Without therefore going into the assessment of the documents that have been supplied to this Court, it is well settled that unless arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the tendering authority is alleged, the expert evaluation of a particular tender, particularly when it comes to technical evaluation, is not to be second-guessed by a writ court. Thus, in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] , this Court noted :
(SCC pp. 531-32, para 22)
“22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;
OR
Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say:‘the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached’; (ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.”
(emphasis supplied)‘
17.It is to be noted that it is the further contention of the petitioner that the tender condition has been tailor made to accommodate the successful bidder. According to the writ petitioner, the condition with regard to the turnover of not less than Rs.3 Crores in any one of the current three financial years from 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 has been introduced in the tender condition. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has also participated in the tender but the tender condition has not been challenged. Having participated in the tender process and when the petitioner has not followed the essential conditions while submitting his bid and owing to the same, his bid has been rejected, now it is too late for him to contend that such condition has been introduced in the tender at a later point of time to suit the convenience of the successful bidder. The other contention of the petitioner was that the tender summary report were uploaded only by one Mr.T.Prabakaran and not by the scrutiny committee and therefore, there is bias. In the counter, it is stated that only the scrutiny committee has assessed the documents and accepted the tender of 5th respondent in the first writ petition and rejected the tender of the petitioner. Therefore, merely because documents have been uploaded by one of the personnel and his name has been found in the webcopy, that cannot be a ground to hold that there is bias or malafide in the entire tender process.
18.The other contention of the petitioner is that there is delay in opening the bid. The reasons for such delay has been clearly explained by the respondents in the counter that as there was some network issue, the same has not been opened on time but the delay cannot be attached with any malafide. Therefore merely because there is a delay around 45 minutes in opening the tender, the malafide cannot be attached. When the petitioner does not even satisfy the tender conditions, he cannot question the very process of tender. Further, much reliance has been placed on the webcopy to contend that the petitioner’s bid has been accepted. In this regard, the court has perused the web copy Tender summary report. It clearly shows that the tender has not been accepted on 28.11.2025 but only the application filed by the petitioner had been admitted along with others. Therefore, merely because the application has been admitted, it cannot be said that the tender has been accepted and later it has been rejected. In fact, the rejection order was passed only on 01.12.2025.
19.It is to be pointed out that challenging any allotment of tender, an appeal remedy is provided under section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency of Tenders Act, 1998 and any tenderer who is aggrieved by the order passed by the tender accepting authority under section 10 may appeal to the Government within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order and the Government shall dispose of the appeal within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same. Therefore, when an effective alternate remedy is very much available, the writ petitions are not maintainable. It is well settled that for the allegation of arbitrariness and malafide, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a matter or right when alternate remedy is very much available. That apart, it is relevant to note that the petitioner is also aware of the rejection of the bid on 01.12.2025 itself. In fact, the petitioner has sent a request by letter dated 01.12.2025 to the Scrutiny committee member, wherein he has clearly stated that he has received the email about the rejection of his technical bid and therefore, the petitioner is aware of the rejection on 01.12.2025 but he has not filed any appeal.
20.In respect of interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an effective alternative remedy is available, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510 has held in paragraph 10 as follows:
‘10. We may profitably refer, in this context, to the Constitution Bench decision in Thansingh Nathmal v. A. Mazid, Superintendent of Taxes11. In Thansingh Nathmal (supra), this Court had the occasion to lay down a principle of law which is salutary and not to be found in any other previous decision rendered by it. The principle, plainly, is that, if a remedy is available to a party before the high court in another jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction should not normally be exercised on a petition under Article 226, for, that would allow the machinery set up by the concerned statute to be bye-passed. The relevant passage from the decision reads as follows:
“The jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the article. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary; it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the court will not entertain a petition for a writ under article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which, without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit, by entertaining a petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the machinery created under the statute to be by-passed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.” (emphasis ours)’
21.In such view of the matter, since the rejection was also made and communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner is also aware of the same, the first writ petition has become infructuous.
22.In the light of the reasonings stated above, this court does not find any merit in both the writ petitions. Accordingly, both writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.12.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking Order vvk
Note to Registry : Issue order copy on 19.12.2025.
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture, Religious Endowments and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Tourism Development
Corporation, Fort St. George,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, No.2, Wallajah Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, No.2, Wallajah Salai, Chennai-600 002. 
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. vvk W.P.Nos.47251 and 48902 of 2025
18.12.2025