Limited judicial review in tender evaluation bars interference absent arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, bias, or perversity.

Writ review in tender disputes remains limited where the tender framework provides a statutory appeal and the challenge is brought before the process is complete. The Court treated the petitions as premature because the appellate remedy under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act had not been invoked, and declined to entertain the challenge. It also refused to re-examine the tender accepting authority's GST assessment or financial bid evaluation, holding that interference is confined to arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, bias, or perversity. No basis was found to reject the successful bidder's bid, and the challenge to the tender process failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the stage of the tender process; (ii) Whether the Court should interfere with the tender accepting authority's decision on GST applicability and evaluation of the financial bids.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the stage of the tender process.

Analysis: The tender framework provided for objective evaluation by the tender accepting authority, acceptance of the lowest tender on quantifiable factors, and an appeal to the Government against an order under Section 10. The petitions were filed before completion of the tender process and before any completed award-based challenge could be pursued under the statutory scheme. The Court treated the challenge as premature and noted that the statutory appellate remedy had not been invoked.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on maintainability grounds and the petitioners did not obtain relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court should interfere with the tender accepting authority's decision on GST applicability and evaluation of the financial bids.

Analysis: The Court held that it would not undertake a roving enquiry into the correctness of the GST position or substitute its view for that of the tender accepting authority. In commercial tender matters, judicial review is confined to cases of arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, bias, or perversity. The authority that framed the tender was treated as the best judge of the interpretation and evaluation of its own tender conditions. The Court found no basis to displace the decision to proceed with the 4th respondent's bid.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the tender evaluation or the decision not to reject the 4th respondent's bid.

Final Conclusion: The common challenge to the tender process failed, and the writ petitions were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In tender matters, writ interference is limited; where a statutory appellate remedy exists and the tendering authority's decision is neither arbitrary nor irrational, the Court will not substitute its own assessment for that of the authority.

---