Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Abdul Majeed C.K vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 29 September, 2025

                                                       ​2025:KER:72979​
                                        ​1​
​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​
W
 ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
                  ​
                                      PRESENT​
                                      ​
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
           ​
                                          &​
                                          ​
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR​
                 ​
                 TH​
                 ​
   MONDAY, THE 29​
   ​                 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA,​​
                     ​                                   1947​


                            WP(C) NO. 33870 OF 2025​
                            ​

PETITIONER:​
​

                   ​BDUL MAJEED C.K​
                   A
                   AGED 48 YEARS​
                   ​
                   S/O.MUHAMMED KOYA, CHAYICHAM KANDIYIL, POOVATTUPARAMBA,​
                   ​
                   PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE PROPRIETOR, KRECENT NEAR DAMRO​
                   ​
                   FURNITURE, K.S PURAM P.O, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM,​
                   ​
                   PIN - 690544​
                   ​


                   ​Y ADVS.​
                   B
                   SRI.S.SUJIN​
                   ​
                   SMT.T.N.GIRIJA​
                   ​
                   SMT.NITA.N.S.​
                   ​
                   SMT.RENU B RAJ.​
                   ​
                   SHRI.N.BHARAT​
                   ​
                   SHRI.ARJUN BABU C.S.​
                   ​
                   SMT.THRESSY THOMAS​
                   ​
                   SRI.H.VISHNUDAS​
                   ​
                   SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN​
                   ​


RESPONDENTS:​

​ 1​ ​ ​RAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD​ T REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING,​ ​ NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695003​ ​ 2​ ​ ​EVASWOM COMMISSIONER​ D TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING,​ ​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​2​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695003​ ​ 3​ ​ ​XECUTIVE OFFICER​ E SABARIMALA DEVASWOM TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD​ ​ PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689652​ ​ 4​ ​ ​AVARATHNA OIL REFINERIES PVT. LTD.,​ N THEJAS ARCADE, NO.9/1, 5TH FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD,​ ​ A BLOCK, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, OPPOSITE ST.THERESA HOSPITAL,​ ​ DR.RAJ KUMAR ROAD, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS​ ​ MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN-560 010.​ ​ (THE NAME OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS​ ​ 'NAMRATHA OIL REFINERIES PVT. LTD., THEJAS ARCADE,​ ​ NO.9/1, 5TH FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, A BLOCK,​ ​ SUBRAMANYANAGAR, OPPOSITE ST.THERESA HOSPITAL, DR.RAJ​ ​ KUMAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS​ ​ MANAGING DIRECTOR" AS PER THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2025 IN​ ​ IA NO.1/2025 IN WP(C) NO.33870/2025.)​ ​ BY ADV SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD​ ​ ​HIS​ ​ T WRIT​ ​ PETITION​ ​ (CIVIL)​ ​ HAVING​ ​ COME​ ​ UP​ ​ FOR​ ​ FINAL​ HEARING​ ​ ​ ON​ ​29.09.2025,​ ​ ALONG​ ​WITH​ ​ WP(C).33867/2025,​ 33971/2025,​ ​ ​ THE​ ​COURT​ ​ ON​ ​THE​ ​ SAME​ ​DAY​ ​DELIVERED​ ​THE​ FOLLOWING:​ ​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​3​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​ ​ PRESENT​ ​ THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​ ​ &​ ​ THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR​ ​ TH​ ​ MONDAY, THE 29​ ​ DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA, 1947​ ​ WP(C) NO. 33867 OF 2025​ ​ PETITIONER:​ ​ ​AVAS POKKITTATH MEETHAL​ N AGED 50 YEARS​ ​ S/O CHERIYAMMED, RESIDING AT KUNHIPPURAYIL HOUSE,​ ​ KARANDODE, KAYAKODI P.O., KOZHIKODE , PROPRIETOR,​ ​ KUTTIADI EXPORTS, HAVING OFFICE AT 12/457-B, KARANDODE,​ ​ KAYAKODI P.O., KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673508​ ​ ​Y ADVS.​ B SRI.K.SHAJ​ ​ SMT.BEENA N.KARTHA​ ​ SRI.ARUN CHAND​ ​ SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.​ ​ SHRI.KEVIN JAMES​ ​ SMT.MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON​ ​ SMT.GOPIKA GOPAL​ ​ SMT.ARCHANA P.P.​ ​ SHRI.REN SHIBU​ ​ SMT.SHEHROON PATEL A.K.​ ​ SHRI.ISSAC MELVIN B.O.​ ​ SMT.RICHA ANNA GEORGE​ ​ RESPONDENTS:​ ​ 1​ ​ ​RAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD​ T REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE​ ​ DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM​ ​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​4​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ DISTRICT, PIN - 695034​ ​ 2​ ​ ​HE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER​ T OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,​ ​ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695034​ ​ 3​ ​ ​HE EXECUTIVE OFFICER​ T SABARIMALA DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,​ ​ PAMPA THRIVENI P. O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689652​ ​ 4​ ​ ​ERALA STATE IT MISSION E-GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT​ K PMU AND HELPDESK​ ​ SAANKETHIKA, NEAR EPF OFFICE, VRINDAVAN GARDENS,​ ​ PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695004​ ​ 5​ ​ ​AMRATHA OIL REFINERIES PVT. LTD.​ N REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TEJAS ARCADE,​ ​ NO.9/1, 5TH FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, A BLOCK,​ ​ SUBRAMANYANAGAR, OPP. ST. THERESA HOSPITAL, DR.​ ​ RAJKUMAR ROAD, BENGALURU. (EMAIL: [email protected]),​ ​ PIN - 560010​ ​ ADDL.R6​ ​ ​ C. SURESHKUMAR,​ AGED 61 YEARS, S/O CHELAPPAN PILLAI, MANIKANTA VILASAM,​ ​ PIRAYIL, PEYAD P. O., VILAPPIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM​ ​ DISTRICT - 695 573 (EMAIL: [email protected])​ ​ (ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19-09-2025 IN IA​ ​ 1/2025 IN WPC 33867/2025)​ ​ ​Y ADVS.​ B SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD​ ​ SRI.JACOB P.ALEX, FOR R5​ ​ SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH, FOR ADDL. R6​ ​ SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.​ ​ SHRI.AMAL AMIR ALI​ ​ THIS​ ​ ​ WRIT​ ​ PETITION​ ​ (CIVIL)​ ​HAVING​ ​ COME​ ​UP​ ​ FOR​ ​ FINAL​ ​EARING​ ​ H ON​ ​29.09.2025,​ ​ALONG​ ​WITH​ ​ WP(C).33870/2025​ ​ AND​ CONNECTED​ ​ ​ CASES,​ ​ THE​ ​ COURT​ ​ ON​ ​ THE​ ​ SAME​ ​ DAY​ ​ DELIVERED​ ​THE​ FOLLOWING:​ ​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​5​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​ ​ PRESENT​ ​ THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​ ​ &​ ​ THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR​ ​ TH​ ​ MONDAY, THE 29​ ​ DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA, 1947​ ​ WP(C) NO. 33971 OF 2025​ ​ PETITIONER:​ ​ ​AAGAR ENTERPRISES,​ S NEAR OSLO CINEMA, OFFICE NO. 117, PLOT NO.141/142,​ ​ GOLDEN ARCADE, OSLO ROAD, SECTOR 8, GANDHIDHAM,​ ​ KACHCHH, GUJARAT,REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY​ ​ HOLDER, NIDHIN DHANAPALAN - S/O.V.P. DHANAPALAN,​ ​ RESIDING AT ANAKKUZHICKAL, VARANAM P.O, CHERTHALA,​ ​ ALEPPEY, KERALA, PIN - 370201​ ​ ​Y ADVS.​ B SMT.BINISHA BABY​ ​ SMT.SARITHA K.S.​ ​ SHRI.ARAVIND RAJAGOPALAN MENON​ ​ SHRI.ANIL D. NAIR (SR.)​ ​ RESPONDENTS:​ ​ 1​ ​ ​HE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,​ T TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, SABARIMALA, PATHANAMTHITTA,​ ​ KERALA., PIN - 689713​ ​ 2​ ​ ​RAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD​ T REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS,​ ​ NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695003​ ​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​6​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ 3​ ​ ​EVASWOM COMMISSIONER,​ D TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,​ ​ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695003​ ​ 4​ ​ ​TATE OF KERALA,​ S REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,​ ​ REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,​ ​ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -, PIN - 695001​ ​ ADDL R5​ ​ ​R SURENDRAN NAIR,​ M ANUSURYA, NOORNAD, MAVELIKKARA-690504​ ​ [ADDL R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26-09-2025​ ​ IN IA 01/2025 IN WPC 33971/2025]​ ​ BY ADV SRI.G.BIJU, SC FOR TDB​ ​ ADV SRI. RASHEED C. NOORANAD, FOR ADDL R5​ ​ ​HIS​ ​ T WRIT​ ​ PETITION​ ​ (CIVIL)​ ​HAVING​ ​ COME​ ​ UP​ ​ FOR​ ​ FINAL​ HEARING​ ​ ​ ON​ ​ 29.09.2025,​ ​ ALONG​ ​WITH​ ​ WP(C).33870/2025​ ​ AND​ CONNECTED​ ​ ​ CASES,​ ​ THE​ ​ COURT​ ​ ON​ ​ THE​ ​ SAME​ ​ DAY​ ​ DELIVERED​ ​ THE​ FOLLOWING:​ ​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​7​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​J U D G M E N T​ ​[WP(C) Nos.33870/2025, 33867/2025, 33971/2025]​ ​Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.​ ​These​ ​Writ​ ​Petitions​ ​are​ ​filed​ ​challenging​ ​Tender​ ​No.​ ​ROC-13/2025/SAB​​(Kuthaka)​​dated​​13.08.2025​​and​​the​​tender​​conditions​​and​ ​schedule,​ ​insofar​ ​as​ ​they​ ​relate​ ​to​ ​Item​ ​Nos.​ ​1,​ ​3​ ​and​ ​85,​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Travancore Devaswom Board.​ ​2.​ ​As​ ​the​ ​Makaravilakku-Mandaravillaku​ ​season​ ​is​ ​fast​ ​approaching,​​we​​ordered​​notice​​by​​special​​messenger​​to​​secure​​the​​appearance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​party​ ​respondents.​ ​They​ ​have​ ​appeared​ ​through​ ​counsel​ ​and​ ​with​ ​the​ ​consent​ ​of​ ​the​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​parties,​ ​these​ ​petitions​ ​are​​taken​​up​ ​and disposed of by a common judgment.​ ​3.​ ​For​ ​the​ ​sake​ ​of​ ​ease​ ​and​ ​clarity​ ​parties​ ​and​ ​exhibits​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​referred to as described in W.P.(C) No. 33867 of 2025 unless otherwise stated.​ ​4.​ ​Item​ ​No.​ ​1​ ​of​ ​the​ ​aforesaid​ ​tender​ ​concerns​ ​the​ ​collection​ ​of​ ​coconuts​​offered​​by​​pilgrims​​and​​devotees​​during​​the​​period​​from​​11.11.2025​ ​to​ ​31.10.2026​ ​at​ ​Pathinettampadi,​ ​Saramkuthy,​ ​Sabaree​ ​Peedam,​ ​Karimala,​ ​Malanada,​​and​​Malikappuram.​​Item​​No.​​3​​relates​​to​​flowers,​​and​​Item​​No.​​85​ ​relates​ ​to​ ​the​ ​collection​ ​of​ ​coconuts​ ​during​ ​the​ ​same​ ​period​ ​at​ ​the​ ​Pamba​ ​Ganapathi Temple and other nearby temples.​ ​5.​ ​As​ ​per​ ​the​ ​records,​ ​Ext.​ ​P1​​tender​​was​​advertised​​as​​an​​e-tender​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​8​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​in​​regional​​newspapers​​on​​18.08.2025,​​as​​is​​evident​​from​​Ext.​​P2,​​produced​​in​ ​the​ ​said​ ​Writ​ ​Petition.​ ​The​ ​public​​announcement​​in​​the​​newspapers​​specified​ ​that​ ​bidding​ ​would​ ​commence​ ​at​ ​10:00​ ​a.m.​ ​on​ ​18.08.2025​ ​and​ ​close​ ​at​ ​11:00​​a.m.​​on​​27.08.2025.​​The​​scrutiny​​of​​the​​technical​​bids​​was​​scheduled​​to​ ​begin​ ​at​ ​11:00​ ​a.m.​ ​on​ ​28.08.2025,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​price​ ​bids​ ​of​ ​successful​ ​bidders​ ​were to be opened at 10:00 a.m. on 30.08.2025.​ ​6.​ ​In​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33870​ ​of​ ​2025,​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​states​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​preparing​ ​to​ ​submit​ ​his​ ​e-tender​ ​but​ ​could​ ​not​ ​do​ ​so​ ​before​ ​11:00​ ​a.m.​ ​on​ ​27.08.2025.​ ​Later,​ ​he​ ​learned​ ​that​ ​the​ ​last​ ​date​ ​for​ ​submission​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​had​ ​been​ ​extended​ ​by​ ​one​ ​day,​ ​until​ ​6:00​ ​p.m.​ ​on​ ​28.08.2025.​ ​He​ ​contends​ ​that,​ ​unlike​ ​prior​ ​practice,​ ​this​ ​extension​ ​was​ ​not​ ​publicly​ ​announced​ ​in​ ​the​ ​newspapers​ ​but​ ​was​ ​communicated​ ​only​ ​to​ ​those​ ​already​​participating​​in​​the​ ​tender​ ​process,​ ​thereby​ ​preventing​ ​prospective​ ​bidders​ ​like​ ​himself​ ​from​ ​submitting bids.​ ​7.​ ​In​​W.P.(C)​​No.​​33867​​of​​2025,​​the​​petitioner​​is​​the​​proprietor​​of​​a​ ​concern​ ​by​ ​name​ ​"Kuttiyadi​ ​Exports".​ ​He​ ​states​​that​​he​​had​​quoted​​a​​sum​​of​ ​Rs.9,35,35,311/-​ ​for​ ​Item​ ​No.​ ​1​ ​and​ ​Rs.2,61,11,111/-​ ​for​ ​Item​ ​No.​ ​85,​ ​as​ ​shown​ ​in​ ​the​ ​bid-submission​ ​confirmation​ ​(Ext.P3).​ ​He​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​the​ ​e-tender​ ​portal​ ​closed​ ​at​ ​11:00​ ​a.m.​ ​on​ ​27.08.2025,​ ​with​ ​his​ ​final​ ​bid​ ​submitted​ ​at​ ​10:16​ ​a.m.​ ​that​ ​day.​ ​According​​to​​the​​petitioner,​​he​​intended​​to​ ​be​ ​present​ ​at​ ​the​ ​office​ ​of​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​respondent​ ​at​ ​10:00​ ​a.m.​ ​on​ ​30.08.2025​ ​when​​the​​bids​​were​​to​​be​​opened.​​He​​states​​that​​on​​30.08.2025,​​upon​​checking​ ​his​​e-mail,​​the​​petitioner​​noticed​​a​​message​​from​​"[email protected]"​​sent​​at​ ​7:08​​p.m.​​on​​27.08.2025​​to​​the​​email​​of​​his​​proprietorship​​concern,​​informing​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​9​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​him​ ​that​ ​the​ ​bid-submission​ ​deadline​ ​had​ ​been​ ​extended​ ​to​ ​6:00​ ​p.m.​ ​on​ ​28.08.2025​ ​and​ ​that​ ​the​ ​scrutiny​ ​of​ ​technical​ ​bids​ ​was​ ​rescheduled​ ​to​ ​9:00​ ​a.m.​ ​on​ ​29.08.2025.​ ​The​ ​petitioners​ ​contend​ ​that,​ ​as​ ​evidenced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​published​ ​corrigendum​ ​(Ext.​ ​P6)​ ​on​ ​the​ ​e-tender​ ​website​ ​maintained​ ​by​ ​the​ ​4th​​respondent,​​the​​corrigendum​​was​​uploaded​​only​​after​​the​​original​​deadline​ ​of 11:00 a.m. on 27.08.2025 had expired.​ ​8.​ ​In​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33971​ ​of​ ​2025,​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​contends​​that​​they​ ​had​ ​submitted​ ​a​ ​tender​ ​on​ ​23.08.2025,​ ​as​ ​is​ ​evident​ ​from​ ​Ext.P2​ ​bid​ ​submission​ ​confirmation.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​ ​petitioner,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​served​​with​​an​ ​intimation​ ​dated​ ​29.08.2025,​ ​informing​ ​that​ ​the​ ​date​ ​of​ ​closure​​of​​the​​tender​ ​had​ ​been​ ​extended.​ ​A​ ​copy​ ​of​ ​the​ ​e-mail​ ​intimation,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​dated​ ​29.08.2025​ ​has​ ​been​ ​produced​ ​as​ ​Ext.P3.​ ​He​ ​would​ ​further​ ​contend​ ​that​ ​on​ ​further​​examination,​​it​​has​​come​​to​​the​​notice​​of​​the​​petitioner​​that​​the​​tenders​ ​were​​not​​yet​​opened/closed​​even​​as​​on​​11.09.2025,​​as​​is​​evident​​from​​Ext.P4.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​conduct​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​in​ ​changing​ ​the​ ​terms of the tender conditions unilaterally is illegal and suspected.​ ​9.​ ​The​ ​petitioners​ ​allege​ ​that​ ​this​ ​belated​ ​and​ ​non-transparent​ ​extension​ ​is​ ​illegal​ ​and​ ​deprived​ ​them​ ​and​ ​other​ ​prospective​ ​bidders​ ​of​ ​the​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​revise​ ​their​ ​bids.​ ​They​ ​assert​ ​that​ ​respondents​​took​​advantage​ ​of​​the​​unlawful​​extension​​to​​submit​​their​​bids​​and​​were​​consequently​​declared​ ​successful.​ ​They​ ​also​ ​contend​ ​that​ ​they​ ​were​ ​prevented​ ​from​ ​revising​ ​their​ ​bids​​until​​the​​closure​​of​​the​​portal.​​In​​one​​of​​the​​Writ​​Petitions,​​it​​is​​contended​ ​that​ ​an​ ​earlier​ ​tender​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​was​ ​cancelled​ ​without​ ​assigning any reasons.​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​10​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​10.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​on​ ​these​ ​assertions​ ​that​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33867​ ​of​​2025​​is​​filed​ ​seeking the following relief:​ ​A)​ ​To​ ​issue​ ​a​ ​writ​ ​of​ ​mandamus​ ​or​ ​any​ ​other​ ​appropriate​ ​writ,​​direction​​or​​order​​to​​set​​aside​​the​​successful​​bid​​of​ ​the​​5th​​respondent​​for​​Item​​Nos.​​1​​and​​85​​of​​Exhibit​​P1​ ​tender​​and​​to​​re-tender​​Item​​Nos.​​1​​and​​85​​in​​the​​Exhibit​ ​P1​​tender​​to​​provide​​an​​equal​​opportunity​​for​​all​​bidders​ ​to​​give​​their​​final​​bid​​at​​the​​advertised​​closing​​of​​the​​bid​ ​without​ ​letting​ ​the​ ​closing​ ​time​ ​being​ ​changed​ ​retrospectively;​ ​11.​ ​In W.P.(C) No. 33870 of 2025, the reliefs sought for are as under:​ ​i,​ T ​ o​​issue​​a​​writ​​of​​certiorari​​or​​any​​other​​appropriate​​writ​ ​order or direction to quash Exts P1, P2 and P3;​ ​ii.​ ​To​ ​issue​ ​a​ ​Writ​ ​of​ ​Mandamus​ ​or​ ​any​ ​other​ ​appropriate​ ​writ​ ​or​ ​order​ ​or​ ​direction​ ​directing​ ​the​ ​2nd​ ​respondent​ ​to​ ​publish​ ​fresh​ ​notification​ ​inviting​ ​Tenders​ ​for​ ​the​ ​auction of coconuts in the Sabarimala-Pamba;​ ​12.​ ​W.P.(C) No.33971 of 2025 is filed seeking the following reliefs:​ ​i.​ C ​ all​​for​​the​​records​​leading​​to​​the​​issuance​​of​​Ext.P1​​and​ ​quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari;​ ​ii.​ ​Pending​ ​hearing​ ​and​ ​final​ ​disposal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Writ​ ​Petition,​ ​this​​Hon'ble​​Court​​be​​pleased​​to​​grant​​stay​​of​​all​​further​ ​proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1;​ ​13.​ ​Separate​ ​counter​ ​affidavits​ ​have​ ​been​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Travancore​ ​Devasom​ ​Board​​(TDB).​ ​The​​contentions​​in​​the​​counter​​affidavit​​are​​more​​or​ ​less​​identical.​​It​​is​​stated​​that​​insofar​​as​​the​​petitioner​​in​​W.P.(C)​​No.​​33867​​of​ ​2025​ ​is​ ​concerned,​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​is​ ​not​ ​even​ ​a​ ​participant​ ​in​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​11​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​proceedings.​​It​​is​​stated​​that​​as​​per​​the​​tender​​notification,​​233​​Kuthaka​​items​ ​were​​notified​​for​​auction.​ ​The​​tender​​notification​​was​​published​​in​​all​​Kerala​ ​editions​​of​​three​​Malayalam​​dailies,​​viz.,​​Mathrubhoomi,​​Malayala​​Manorama​ ​and​ ​Deshabhimani​ ​and​ ​all​ ​Tamil​ ​Nadu​ ​editions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Tamil​ ​daily,​ ​'Dina​ ​Thanthi'.​ ​The​ ​detailed​ ​notification​ ​containing​ ​tender​ ​conditions​ ​and​ ​tender​ ​schedules​ ​were​ ​published​ ​in​​the​​official​​website​​of​​the​​TDB​​and​​the​​e-tender​ ​web​​portal​​of​​the​​Government​​of​​Kerala.​ ​It​​is​​stated​​that​​an​​inadvertent​​error​ ​had​ ​occurred​ ​in​ ​Ext.P1​ ​detailed​ ​tender​​notification​​published​​on​​the​​web​​site​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Board​ ​and​ ​the​ ​web​ ​portal​​of​​the​​Government​​wherein​​the​​closing​​date​ ​was​​wrongly​​given​​as​​11.00​​p.m.​​on​​27.08.2025.​ ​After​​the​​closure​​of​​the​​web​ ​portal,​ ​numerous​ ​complaints​ ​were​ ​received​ ​prompting​ ​the​ ​Board​ ​to​ ​re-open​ ​the​ ​portal​ ​to​ ​enable​ ​the​ ​bidders​ ​to​ ​submit​ ​their​ ​bids​ ​till​ ​6:00​ ​p.m.​ ​on​ ​28.08.2025.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​respondent,​ ​the​ ​closing​ ​time​ ​was​ ​extended​ ​with​ ​a​ ​good​ ​intention​ ​of​ ​giving​ ​a​ ​fair​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​all​ ​and​ ​not​ ​to​ ​deprive​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​those​ ​who​ ​had​ ​mistakenly​ ​noted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​closing​ ​time​ ​was​ ​11:00​​p.m.​​on​​27.08.2025.​​It​​is​​stated​​that​​a​​corrigendum​​was​​published​​in​​the​ ​web​ ​portal,​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​change​ ​in​ ​closing​ ​date​ ​and​ ​technical​ ​bid​ ​opening​ ​date​ ​as​ ​9:00​ ​a.m.​ ​on​ ​29.08.2025.​ ​The​ ​change​ ​was​ ​also​ ​announced​ ​in​ ​the​ ​official​​website​​of​​the​​TDB.​​Auto-generated​​e-mail​​was​​sent​​to​​the​​e-mails​​of​ ​all​ ​persons​ ​who​ ​have​ ​submitted​ ​their​ ​bids,​ ​immediately​ ​on​ ​uploading​ ​the​ ​corrigendum​ ​in​ ​the​ ​webportal.​ ​As​ ​per​ ​the​ ​general​ ​conditions​ ​in​ ​the​ ​tender-notification,​ ​all​ ​bidders​ ​were​ ​required​ ​to​ ​submit​ ​their​ ​ID​ ​proof,​ ​including​ ​Aadhaar​ ​and​ ​contact​ ​details,​ ​to​ ​communicate​ ​with​ ​the​ ​bidders.​ ​Ext.R1(a),​ ​copy​ ​of​ ​the​ ​corrigendum​ ​uploaded​ ​in​ ​Kerala​ ​Tenders,​ ​was​​placed​ ​on record.​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​12​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​14.​ ​Insofar​ ​as​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33867​ ​of​ ​2025​ ​is​ ​concerned,​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​of​ ​change​ ​was​ ​communicated​ ​to​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​in​ ​his​ ​e-mail​ ​ID,​ ​and​ ​he​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​heard​ ​to​ ​contend​ ​otherwise.​​It​​is​​contended​​that​ ​the​ ​successful​ ​bidder,​ ​insofar​ ​as​ ​item​ ​No.​ ​1​ ​is​ ​concerned,​ ​had​​submitted​​his​ ​bid​​at​​2:22​​p.m.​​on​​25.08.2025​​and​​that​​he​​did​​not​​submit​​any​​fresh​​bid​​during​ ​the​​period​​of​​extension.​​It​​is​​stated​​that​​only​​two​​bids​​were​​received​​in​​respect​ ​of​ ​Kuthaka​ ​Sl.​ ​No.​ ​1​ ​and​ ​the​ ​successful​ ​bidder​​had​​quoted​​Rs.9,77,00,000/-,​ ​and​ ​"Kuttiyadi​ ​Exports"​ ​quoted​ ​Rs.7,61,11,011/-.​ ​The​ ​technical​ ​bid​ ​was​ ​opened​ ​on​​29.08.2025​​in​​terms​​of​​the​​corrigendum,​​and​​the​​financial​​bid​​was​ ​opened​ ​on​ ​30.08.2025.​ ​The​ ​5th​ ​respondent​ ​has​ ​remitted​ ​50%​ ​of​ ​the​​kuthaka​ ​amount.​ ​Insofar,​ ​item​ ​No.​ ​85​ ​is​ ​concerned,​ ​four​ ​bids​ ​were​ ​received,​ ​which​ ​were​ ​all​ ​received​ ​before​ ​11:00​ ​a.m.​ ​on​ ​27.08.2025.​ ​The​ ​highest​ ​bidder,​ ​Mr.​ ​Suresh​ ​Kumar,​ ​quoted​ ​Rs.3,87,77,555/-,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Kuttiyadi​ ​Exports​ ​quoted​ ​only​ ​Rs.​ ​3,76,35,111/-.​ ​Communication​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​to​ ​the​ ​highest​ ​bidder​ ​to​ ​remit the kuthaka amount, and accordingly, 50% of the amount was remitted.​ ​15.​ ​Insofar​ ​as​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33870​ ​of​ ​2025​ ​is​ ​concerned,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​he​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​considered​ ​as​ ​a​ ​person​ ​who​ ​genuinely​ ​intended​ ​to​​submit​​the​​bid.​​Insofar​​as​​the​​petitioner​​in​​W.P.(C)​​No.​ ​33867​ ​of​ ​2025​ ​is​ ​concerned,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​of​ ​change​ ​was​ ​communicated​ ​to​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​in​ ​his​ ​e-mail​ ​ID,​ ​and​ ​he​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​heard​ ​to​ ​contend otherwise.​ ​16.​ ​Insofar​ ​as​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33971​ ​of​ ​2025​ ​is​ ​concerned,​​it​​is​​stated​​in​​the​​counter​​that​​three​​bids​​were​​received​​in​​respect​​of​ ​Kuthaka​ ​Sl.​ ​No.​ ​3,​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​"Saagar​ ​Enterprises",​ ​the​ ​petitioner.​ ​Sri.​ ​M​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​13​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​Vijayakumar​ ​and​ ​Sri.​ ​Surendran​ ​Nair​ ​submitted​ ​bids​ ​for​ ​Sl.​ ​No.​ ​3.​ ​Sri.​ ​M.​ ​Vijayakumar​ ​uploaded​ ​his​ ​bid​ ​on​ ​23.08.2025​ ​at​ ​05:18​ ​p.m.,​ ​quoting​ ​Rs.​ ​1,51,00,001/-,​​as​​is​​evident​​from​​Ext.R2(d)​​.​ ​"Saagar​​Enterprises"​​uploaded​​its​ ​bid​ ​documents​ ​on​ ​23.08.2025​ ​at​ ​05:44​ ​p.m.,​ ​quoting​ ​Rs.1,51,10,001/-.​ ​Sri.Surendran​​Nair​​initially​​submitted​​his​​bid​​on​ ​26.08.2025​​at​​11:14​​p.m.​​and​ ​thereafter​ ​uploaded​ ​revised​ ​bid​ ​documents​ ​at​ ​5:36​ ​p.m.​ ​on​ ​the​ ​same​ ​day,​ ​quoting Rs. 1,57,27,777/-, as is evident from Ext.R2(e).​ ​17.​ ​It​​is​​stated​​that​​the​​technical​​bid​​and​​financial​​bid​​were​​opened​​on​ ​29.08.2025​ ​and​ ​30.08.2025​ ​respectively,​ ​at​ ​Sumangali​ ​Kalyana​ ​Mandapam,​ ​Devaswom​ ​Headquarters,​ ​Thiruvananthapuram​ ​and​ ​the​ ​name​ ​of​ ​the​ ​highest​ ​bidder​ ​was​ ​openly​ ​announced​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​opening​ ​the​ ​financial​ ​bid.​ ​A​ ​communication​ ​was​ ​then​ ​issued​ ​to​ ​the​ ​highest​ ​bidder​ ​to​ ​remit​ ​the​ ​kuthaka​ ​amount,​​as​​per​​the​​tender​​notification.​​The​​highest​​bidder​​remitted​​50%​​of​​the​ ​kuthaka amount on 09.09.2025.​ ​18.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​counter​ ​affidavit​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​5th​ ​respondent​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.33867​ ​of​ ​2025,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​said​ ​respondent​ ​submitted​ ​the​ ​bid​ ​on​ ​25.08.2025​ ​at​ ​2.22​ ​p.m.​ ​as​ ​is​ ​borne​ ​out​ ​from​​Ext.R5(a).​ ​Thereafter,​​the​​said​ ​respondent​​did​​not​​alter/revise​​the​​bid.​ ​Later,​​in​​terms​​of​​Exts.P1​​and​​P5,​​the​ ​technical​ ​bid​ ​and​ ​financial​ ​bid​ ​were​ ​opened​ ​and​ ​it​ ​was​ ​found​ ​that​ ​the​ ​said​ ​respondent​​was​​the​​highest​​bidder​​in​​respect​​of​​item​​No.​​1.​ ​On​​03.09.2025,​​an​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​Rs.​ ​4,88,50,000/-​ ​was​ ​deposited​ ​towards​ ​50%​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bid​ ​amount.​ ​Along​ ​with​ ​this,​ ​the​ ​godown​ ​rent​ ​of​ ​Rs.3,00,000/-​ ​and​ ​Security​ ​Deposit​ ​of​ ​Rs.1,50,000/-​ ​lakhs​ ​was​ ​also​ ​deposited.​ ​Thereafter,​​on​​08.09.2025,​​necessary​ ​stamp​ ​paper​ ​was​ ​purchased​ ​and​ ​an​ ​agreement​ ​was​ ​submitted​ ​along​ ​with​ ​all​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​14​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​required​ ​documents.​ ​Immediately​ ​thereafter,​ ​necessary​ ​arrangements​ ​were​ ​also​ ​made​ ​to​ ​carry​ ​out​ ​the​ ​work.​ ​It​ ​is​​stated​​that​​the​​petitioner​​has​​admitted​ ​that​ ​he​ ​has​ ​received​ ​personal​ ​information​ ​through​ ​e-mail​ ​pertaining​ ​to​ ​the​ ​extension​ ​of​ ​time​ ​and​ ​corrigendum​ ​on​ ​27.08.2025​ ​at​ ​7.08​ ​p.m.​ ​and​ ​in​ ​that​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​matter,​ ​it​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​said​ ​that​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​has​ ​suffered​ ​any​ ​prejudice​​by​​the​​factum​​of​​extension​​of​​time.​ ​Moreover,​​there​​were​​only​​two​ ​bidders​​for​​item​​No.​​1​​in​​Ext.P1.​ ​In​​that​​view​​of​​the​​matter,​​there​​is​​no​​ground​ ​of​​prejudice​​or​​public​​interest​​involved.​ ​It​​is​​further​​stated​​that​​no​​interference​ ​is​ ​warranted​​in​​the​​tender​​process​​as​​the​​petitioner​​has​​not​​been​​able​​to​​plead​ ​and​ ​prove​ ​that​ ​there​ ​has​ ​been​ ​arbitrariness,​ ​irrationality,​ ​or​ ​mala​ ​fides.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​further​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​publication​ ​through​ ​the​ ​web​ ​site​ ​of​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​and​ ​4th​ ​respondents​​are​​the​​most​​authoritative​​source​​of​​publication​​and​​the​​petitioner​ ​having been informed, he cannot claim that any right has been affected.​ ​19.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​heard​ ​the​ ​submissions​ ​advanced​ ​by​ ​Sri.​ ​N.N​ ​Sugunapalam,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Senior​ ​Counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33870​ ​of​ ​2025,​ ​as​ ​instructed​ ​by​ ​Sri.​ ​Sujin.​ ​Sri.​ ​K.​ ​Shaj,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33867​ ​of​ ​2025,​ ​Sri.​ ​Anil​ ​D​ ​Nair,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​​33971​​of​​2025,​​as​​instructed​​by​​Adv.​​Binisha​​Baby.​​For​​and​​on​​behalf​​of​ ​the​ ​respondents,​ ​we​ ​have​ ​heard​ ​Sri.​ ​G.​ ​Biju,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Standing​ ​Counsel​ ​appearing​​for​​the​​Travancore​​Devaswom​​Board,​​Sri.​​Jacob​​P​​Alex,​​the​​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​5th​ ​respondent​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33867​ ​of​ ​2025,​ ​Sri.​ ​Shibu​ ​Joseph,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​6th​ ​respondent​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33867​ ​of​ ​2025,​ ​and​ ​Sri.​ ​Rasheed​ ​C.​ ​Nooranad,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​15​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​additional​ ​5th​ ​respondent​ ​in​​W.P.(C)​​No.​​33971​​of​ ​2025.​ ​20.​ ​Sri.​​N.​​N.​​Sugunapalan,​​the​​learned​​Senior​​Counsel​​appearing​​for​ ​the​ ​petitioner,​ ​would​ ​refer​ ​to​ ​the​ ​judgments​ ​in​ ​Vidarbha​ ​Irrigation​ ​Development​ ​Corporation​ ​and​ ​Others​ ​v.​ ​Anoj​ ​Kumar​ ​Agarwala​ ​and​ ​Others​​1​ ​and​ ​in​ ​M/s.​ ​Poddar​ ​Steel​ ​Corporation.​ ​V.​ ​Ganesh​ ​Engineering​ ​Works​​and​​Others​​2​ ​and​​it​​was​​argued​​that​​the​​requirements​​in​​a​​tender​​notice​ ​can​ ​be​ ​classified​ ​into​ ​two​ ​categories​ ​-​ ​those​ ​which​ ​lay​ ​down​ ​the​ ​essential​ ​conditions​ ​of​ ​eligibility​ ​and​ ​the​ ​others​ ​which​ ​are​ ​merely​ ​ancillary​ ​or​ ​subsidiary​ ​with​ ​the​ ​main​ ​object​ ​to​ ​be​ ​achieved​ ​by​ ​the​ ​condition.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​first​ ​case,​​the​​authority​​issuing​​the​​tender​​may​​be​​required​​to​​enforce​​them​​rigidly.​ ​In​ ​the​​other​​cases,​​it​​must​​be​​open​​to​​the​​authority​​to​​deviate​​from​​and​​not​​to​ ​insist​ ​upon​ ​the​ ​strict​ ​literal​ ​compliance​ ​of​​the​​condition​​in​​appropriate​​cases.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​urged​ ​that​ ​fixation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​last​ ​date​ ​of​ ​receipt​ ​of​ ​bids​ ​is​ ​an​ ​essential​ ​condition​ ​and​ ​the​​power​​of​​general​​relaxation​​can​​only​​be​​applied​​where​​it​​is​ ​possible​​for​​all​​the​​parties​​to​​comply​​with​​all​​such​​conditions​​fully.​​In​​the​​case​ ​on​ ​hand,​ ​the​ ​extension​ ​was​ ​made​ ​only​ ​through​ ​the​ ​web​ ​portal​ ​and​ ​not​ ​by​ ​advertisement​ ​in​ ​the​​newspaper​​as​​was​​done​​originally​​and​​e-mails​​were​​sent​ ​only​ ​to​ ​the​​persons​​who​​had​​participated​​in​​the​​bid.​​It​​is​​submitted​​that​​if​​the​ ​petitioner​ ​was​​made​​aware​​of​​the​​extension,​​he​​would​​have​​submitted​​his​​bid​ ​and the said opportunity was denied to him.​ ​21.​ ​Sri.​​K.Shaj,​​the​​learned​​counsel​​submitted​​that,​​had​​the​​petitioner​ ​received​ ​information​ ​about​ ​such​ ​extension,​ ​he​ ​most​ ​certainly​ ​would​ ​have​ ​1​ ​[​2020 (17) SCC 577]​ ​2​ ​(1991) 3 SCC 273]​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​16​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​revised​ ​his​ ​bid,​​which​​opportunity​​was​​denied​​to​​him.​​It​​is​​submitted​​that​​the​ ​petitioner​ ​did​ ​not​ ​receive​ ​the​ ​email​ ​which​ ​was​ ​sent​ ​in​ ​the​ ​address​ ​of​ ​his​ ​proprietorship​​on​​time​​as​​he​​was​​waiting​​for​​the​​bid​​to​​be​​opened​​,​​which​​was​ ​only​​on​​30.8.2025.​​There​​was​​no​​reason​​for​​him​​to​​check​​his​​mail​​prior​​to​​the​ ​same.​ ​22.​ ​Sri.​​Anil​​D.​​Nair​​also​​supported​​the​​submissions​​advanced​​by​​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel.​ ​He​ ​would​ ​point​ ​out​ ​that​ ​the​ ​mail​ ​that​ ​was​ ​sent​ ​to​ ​him​ ​was​ ​received​​only​​at​​2.26​​pm​​on​​29.8.2025​​much​​after​​the​​last​​date​​of​​submission​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bid​ ​as​ ​per​ ​the​ ​corrigendum.​ ​This​ ​has​ ​resulted​ ​in​ ​serious​ ​prejudice,​ ​contends the learned counsel.​ ​23.​ ​Sri.​ ​Jacob​ ​P.​ ​Alex,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​5th​ ​respondent​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33867​ ​of​ ​2025,​ ​has​ ​relied​ ​on​ ​the​ ​judgments​ ​laid​ ​down​​by​​the​​Apex​​Court​​in​​State​​of​​M.P.​​v.​​U.P.​​State​​Bridge​​Corpn.​​Ltd.​​3​,​ ​ ​B.S.N.​ ​Joshi​ ​&​ ​Sons​ ​Ltd.​ ​v.​ ​Nair​ ​Coal​ ​Services​ ​Ltd​​4​​.,​​Jagdish​​Mandal​​v.​ ​State​​of​​Orissa​​5​​,​​Afcons​​Infrastructure​​Ltd.​​v.​​Nagpur​​Metro​​Rail​​Corpn.​ ​Ltd.​ ​&​ ​Anr.​​6​​,​ ​Tata​ ​Motors​ ​Ltd.​ ​v.​ ​Brihan​ ​Mumbai​ ​Electric​ ​Supply​ ​&​ ​Transport​ ​Undertaking​ ​&​ ​Ors.​​7​,​ ​ ​and​ ​Prakash​ ​Asphaltings​ ​and​ ​Toll​ ​Highways​ ​(India)​ ​Limited​ ​v.​ ​Mandeepa​ ​Enterprises​ ​and​ ​Ors.​​8​​.​ ​Essentially,​ ​the​ ​contention​​advanced​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​is​​that​​in​​view​​of​ ​3​ ​[​(2022) 16 SCC 633]​ ​4​ ​[​(2006) 11 SCC 548]​ ​5​ ​[(2007) 14 SCC 517]​ ​6​ [​ (2016) 16 SCC 818]​ ​7​ ​[(2023) 19 SCC 1]​ ​8​ ​[​MANU/SC/1264/2025]​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​17​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​the​​law​​laid​​down​​by​​the​​Apex​​Court​​in​​Tata​​Cellular​​v.​​Union​​of​​India​​9​,​ ​​and​ ​the​ ​precedents​ ​above,​ ​the​ ​modern​ ​trend​ ​points​ ​to​ ​judicial​ ​restraint​ ​in​ ​administrative​ ​action.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​not​ ​for​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​to​ ​sit​ ​as​ ​a​ ​Court​ ​of​ ​Appeal.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​​learned​​counsel,​​the​​terms​​of​​the​​invitation​​to​​tender​​cannot​ ​be​ ​open​​to​​judicial​​scrutiny​​because​​the​​invitation​​to​​tender​​is​​in​​the​​realm​​of​ ​contract.​​The​​learned​​counsel​​would​​further​​submit​​that​​if​​the​​decision​​relating​ ​to​ ​award​ ​of​ ​contract​​is​​bona​​fide​​and​​is​​in​​public​​interest,​​the​​courts​​will​​not,​ ​in​ ​general,​ ​exercise​ ​power​ ​of​ ​judicial​ ​review,​ ​and​ ​interfere​ ​even​ ​if​ ​a​ ​procedural​​aberration​​or​​error​​in​​assessment​​or​​prejudice​​to​​a​​tenderer​​is​​made​ ​out.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​submits​ ​that​ ​the​ ​queries​ ​that​ ​have​ ​to​ ​be​​put​​by​​this​ ​Court​ ​before​ ​venturing​ ​to​ ​interfere​ ​are;​ ​(i)​ ​Whether​ ​the​ ​process​ ​adopted​ ​or​ ​decision​​made​​by​​the​​authority​​is​​mala​​fide​​or​​intended​​to​​favour​​someone;​​(ii)​ ​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';​ ​(iii)​ ​Whether​ ​public​ ​interest​ ​is​ ​affected.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​points​ ​out​ ​that​ ​nowhere​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Writ​ ​Petition​ ​has​ ​it​ ​been​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​the​ ​action​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​is​ ​mala​ ​fide.​ ​He​ ​would​ ​point​ ​out​ ​that​ ​the​​records​​reveal​​that​​the​ ​successful​ ​bidders​ ​had​ ​submitted​ ​their​ ​bids​ ​even​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​the​ ​issuance​ ​of​​the​ ​corrigendum,​ ​and​ ​in​ ​that​ ​view​​of​​the​​matter,​​the​​petitioners​​cannot​​be​​said​​to​ ​have​ ​been​ ​prejudiced.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​would​ ​refer​ ​to​ ​Jagdish​ ​Mandal​ ​(supra)​ ​and​ ​submits​ ​that​ ​the​ ​attempts​ ​by​ ​unsuccessful​ ​tenderers​ ​with​ ​imaginary​​grievances,​​wounded​​pride​​and​​business​​rivalry,​​to​​make​​mountains​ ​9​ ​[​(1994) 6 SCC 651]​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​18​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​out​ ​of​ ​molehills​ ​of​ ​some​ ​technical/procedural​ ​violation​ ​or​ ​some​ ​prejudice​​to​ ​self,​​may​​not​​persuade​​the​​courts​​to​​interfere​​by​​exercising​​powers​​of​​judicial​ ​review.​ ​24.​ ​From​​the​​precedents​​made​​available​​before​​this​​Court,​​it​​is​​settled​ ​that​ ​the​ ​contours​ ​of​ ​a​ ​power​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​exercising​ ​judicial​ ​review​ ​in​ ​matters​ ​concerning​ ​the​ ​grant​ ​of​ ​contracts​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​and​ ​its​ ​instrumentalities​​are,​​by​​and​​large,​​well-defined​​and​​well-settled.​​It​​is​​trite​​that​ ​judicial​ ​review​ ​is​ ​directed​ ​not​ ​against​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​itself​ ​but​ ​against​ ​the​ ​decision-making​ ​process.​ ​If​ ​the​ ​process​ ​demonstrates​ ​that​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​was​ ​reached​​after​​considering​​all​​relevant​​factors​​and​​excluding​​all​​irrelevant​​ones,​ ​the​​Court​​will​​ordinarily​​refrain​​from​​interference.​​Conversely,​​even​​where​​the​ ​process​ ​reveals​ ​either​ ​a​ ​failure​ ​to​ ​consider​ ​a​ ​relevant​ ​factor​ ​or​ ​the​ ​consideration​ ​of​ ​an​ ​irrelevant​ ​one,​ ​interference​ ​is​ ​warranted​ ​only​ ​if​ ​the​ ​decision​​is​​shown​​to​​be​​mala​​fide​​or​​contrary​​to​​public​​interest.​​The​​terms​​and​ ​conditions​ ​of​ ​an​ ​invitation​ ​to​ ​tender​ ​are​ ​not​ ​open​ ​to​ ​judicial​ ​scrutiny​ ​unless​ ​they​ ​are​ ​themselves​ ​arbitrary,​ ​tainted​ ​with​ ​mala​ ​fides,​ ​or​ ​constitute​ ​a​ ​colourable exercise of power.​ ​25.​ ​Ordinarily,​​therefore,​​in​​the​​realm​​of​​commercial​​contracts,​​when​ ​the​​selection​​of​​a​​tender​​is​​assailed​​on​​the​​ground​​of​​deviation​​from​​the​​terms​ ​and​ ​conditions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Notice​ ​Inviting​ ​Tender​ ​(NIT),​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​must​ ​first​ ​determine​ ​whether​ ​any​ ​such​ ​deviation​ ​has,​​in​​fact,​​occurred.​​If​​a​​deviation​​is​ ​established,​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​must​ ​further​ ​examine​ ​whether​ ​it​ ​pertains​ ​to​ ​a​ ​term​ ​or​ ​condition​​that​​is​​mandatory​​in​​nature,​​incapable​​of​​relaxation,​​and​​not​​relaxed​ ​in​ ​the​ ​larger​ ​public​ ​interest.​ ​To​ ​put​ ​it​ ​differently,​ ​while​ ​the​ ​sanctity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​19​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​tender​ ​process​ ​generally​ ​forbids​ ​departure​ ​from​ ​the​ ​stipulations​ ​contained​ ​in​ ​the​ ​notice​ ​inviting​ ​tender,​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​is​ ​duty-bound​ ​to​ ​satisfy​ ​itself​ ​that​ ​any​ ​deviation​ ​was​ ​either​ ​permissible,​ ​or​ ​demonstrably​ ​justified​ ​in​ ​the​ ​public​ ​interest,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​it​​has​​not​​resulted​​in​​a​​miscarriage​​of​​justice.​​The​​State​​and​ ​its​ ​instrumentalities​ ​are​ ​bound​ ​to​ ​adhere​ ​scrupulously​ ​to​ ​the​ ​norms​ ​and​ ​procedures​ ​set​ ​out​ ​in​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​notice​ ​and​​must​​not​​depart​​therefrom​​except​ ​where​​explicitly​​permitted.​​Normally,​​therefore,​​each​​tender​​must​​be​​evaluated​ ​strictly​ ​on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​conditions​ ​specified​ ​in​ ​the​ ​NIT,​ ​and​ ​no​​departure​ ​can be sustained unless expressly sanctioned therein.​ ​26.​ ​In​​State​​of​​M.P.​​v.​​U.P.​​State​​Bridge​​Corpn.​​Ltd.​​(supra)​​,​​while​ ​reiterating​​the​​parameters​​of​​judicial​​review​​in​​such​​matters​​and​​taking​​note​​of​ ​the​​law​​laid​​down​​in​ ​Tata​​Cellular​​v.​​Union​​of​​India​​(supra),​​the​​Apex​​Court​ ​had observed as under:​ ​"21.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​heard​ ​all​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​parties.​ ​The​ p​ arameters​​of​​judicial​​review​​in​​matters​​such​​as​​the​​present​​have​​been​​well​ ​stated​​in​​many​​decisions​​of​​this​​Court,​​beginning​​with​​the​​celebrated​​Tata​ ​Cellular​​v.​​Union​​of​​India​​[Tata​​Cellular​​v.​​Union​​of​​India,​​(1994)​​6​​SCC​ ​651],​​in​​which​​a​​three-Judge​​Bench​​of​​this​​Court​​laid​​down​​the​​following​ ​principles: (SCC pp. 687-88, para 94)​ ​"94. The principles deducible from the above are:​ (​ 1)​ ​The​ ​modern​ ​trend​ ​points​ ​to​ ​judicial​ ​restraint​ ​in​ ​administrative​ ​action.​ (​ 2)​ ​The​ ​court​ ​does​ ​not​ ​sit​ ​as​ ​a​​court​​of​​appeal​​but​​merely​​reviews​ ​the manner in which the decision was made.​ (​ 3)​ ​The​ ​court​ ​does​ ​not​ ​have​ ​the​ ​expertise​ ​to​ ​correct​ ​the​ ​administrative​​decision.​​If​​a​​review​​of​​the​​administrative​​decision​​is​ ​permitted​ ​it​ ​will​ ​be​ ​substituting​ ​its​ ​own​ ​decision,​ ​without​ ​the​ ​necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​20​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ (​ 4)​ ​The​ ​terms​​of​​the​​invitation​​to​​tender​​cannot​​be​​open​​to​​judicial​ ​scrutiny​​because​​the​​invitation​​to​​tender​​is​​in​​the​​realm​​of​​contract.​ ​Normally​ ​speaking,​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​to​ ​accept​ ​the​ ​tender​​or​​award​​the​ ​contract​​is​​reached​​by​​process​​of​​negotiations​​through​​several​​tiers.​ ​More​ ​often​ ​than​ ​not,​ ​such​ ​decisions​ ​are​ ​made​ ​qualitatively​ ​by​ ​experts.​ (​ 5)​​The​​Government​​must​​have​​freedom​​of​​contract.​​In​​other​​words,​ ​a​ ​fair​ ​play​ ​in​ ​the​ ​joints​ ​is​ ​a​ ​necessary​ ​concomitant​ ​for​ ​an​ ​administrative​ ​body​ ​functioning​ ​in​ ​an​ ​administrative​ ​sphere​ ​or​ ​quasi-administrative​​sphere.​​However,​​the​​decision​​must​​not​​only​​be​ ​tested​​by​​the​​application​​of​​Wednesbury​​principle​​of​​reasonableness​ ​(including​ ​its​ ​other​ ​facts​​pointed​​out​​above)​​but​​must​​be​​free​​from​ ​arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.​ (​ 6)​​Quashing​​decisions​​may​​impose​​heavy​​administrative​​burden​​on​ ​the​ ​administration​ ​and​ ​lead​ ​to​ ​increased​ ​and​ ​unbudgeted​ ​expenditure." (emphasis in original)​ 2​ 2.​​Likewise,​​in​​Jagdish​​Mandal​​v.​​State​​of​​Orissa​​[Jagdish​​Mandal​ ​v.​​State​​of​​Orissa,​​(2007)​​14​​SCC​​517],​​this​​Court​​held​​:​​(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​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​21​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ r​ elief​ ​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​ ​ hether​ ​the​ ​process​ ​adopted​ ​or​ ​decision​ ​made​ ​is​ ​so​ W ​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.​ I​ f​ ​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."​ ​23.​ ​In​ ​Central​ ​Coalfields​ ​Ltd.​ ​v.​ ​SLL-SML​ ​(Joint​ ​Venture​ ​ onsortium),​​(2016)​​8​​SCC​​622,​​this​​Court​​held​​as​​follows​​:​​(SCC​​p.​​638,​ C ​paras 47-48)​ "​ 47.​​The​​result​​of​​this​​discussion​​is​​that​​the​​issue​​of​​the​​acceptance​ ​or​ ​rejection​ ​of​​a​​bid​​or​​a​​bidder​​should​​be​​looked​​at​​not​​only​​from​ ​the​ ​point​ ​of​​view​​of​​the​​unsuccessful​​party​​but​​also​​from​​the​​point​ ​of​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​employer.​ ​As​ ​held​ ​in​ ​Ramana​ ​Dayaram​ ​Shetty​ ​[Ramana​ ​Dayaram​ ​Shetty​ ​v.​ ​International​ ​Airport​ ​Authority​ ​of​ ​India,​ ​(1979)​ ​3​ ​SCC​ ​489]​ ​the​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​NIT​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​ignored​ ​as​ ​being​​redundant​​or​​superfluous.​​They​​must​​be​​given​​a​​meaning​​and​ ​necessary​ ​significance.​ ​As​ ​pointed​ ​out​ ​in​ ​Tata​ ​Cellular​ ​[Tata​ ​Cellular​​v.​​Union​​of​​India,​​(1994)​​6​​SCC​​651]​​there​​must​​be​​judicial​ ​restraint​ ​in​ ​interfering​ ​with​ ​administrative​ ​action.​ ​Ordinarily,​ ​the​ ​soundness​ ​of​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​taken​ ​by​ ​the​ ​employer​ ​ought​ ​not​ ​to​ ​be​ ​questioned​​but​​the​​decision-making​​process​​can​​certainly​​be​​subject​ ​to​​judicial​​review.​​The​​soundness​​of​​the​​decision​​may​​be​​questioned​ ​if​ ​it​ ​is​ ​irrational​ ​or​ ​mala​ ​fide​ ​or​ ​intended​ ​to​ ​favour​ ​someone​ ​or​ ​a​ ​decision​ ​'that​ ​no​ ​responsible​ ​authority​ ​acting​ ​reasonably​ ​and​ ​in​ ​accordance​​with​​relevant​​law​​could​​have​​reached'​​as​​held​​in​​Jagdish​ ​Mandal​ ​[Jagdish​ ​Mandal​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Orissa,​ ​(2007)​ ​14​ ​SCC​ ​517]​ ​followed​​in​​Michigan​​Rubbe​​[Michigan​​Rubber​​(India)​​Ltd.​​v.​​State​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​22​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216] .​ ​ 8.​​Therefore,​​whether​​a​​term​​of​​NIT​​is​​essential​​or​​not​​is​​a​​decision​ 4 ​taken​​by​​the​​employer​​which​​should​​be​​respected.​​Even​​if​​the​​term​ ​is​​essential,​​the​​employer​​has​​the​​inherent​​authority​​to​​deviate​​from​ ​it​ ​provided​ ​the​ ​deviation​ ​is​ ​made​ ​applicable​ ​to​ ​all​ ​bidders​ ​and​ ​potential​ ​bidders​ ​as​ ​held​ ​in​ ​Ramana​ ​Dayaram​ ​Shetty​ ​[Ramana​ ​Dayaram​​Shetty​​v.​​International​​Airport​​Authority​​of​​India,​​(1979)​​3​ ​SCC​ ​489]​ ​.​ ​However,​ ​if​ ​the​ ​term​ ​is​ ​held​ ​by​ ​the​ ​employer​ ​to​ ​be​ ​ancillary​​or​​subsidiary,​​even​​that​​decision​​should​​be​​respected.​​The​ ​lawfulness​ ​of​ ​that​ ​decision​ ​can​ ​be​ ​questioned​ ​on​ ​very​ ​limited​ ​grounds,​​as​​mentioned​​in​​the​​various​​decisions​​discussed​​above,​​but​ ​the​ ​soundness​ ​of​ ​the​ ​decision​​cannot​​be​​questioned,​​otherwise​​this​ ​Court​ ​would​ ​be​ ​taking​ ​over​ ​the​ ​function​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​issuing​ ​authority, which it cannot."​ 2​ 4.​ ​Afcons​ ​Infrastructure​ ​Ltd.​ ​v.​ ​Nagpur​ ​Metro​ ​Rail​ ​Corpn.​ ​Ltd.​ ​[(2016)​ ​16​ ​SCC​ ​818],​ ​puts​ ​the​ ​proposition​ ​extremely​ ​well​ ​when​ ​it​ ​states (SCC P.825, paras 14-15)​ "​ 14.​ ​We​ ​must​ ​reiterate​ ​the​ ​words​ ​of​ ​caution​ ​that​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​has​ ​stated​ ​right​ ​from​ ​the​ ​time​ ​when​ ​Ramana​ ​Dayaram​ ​Shetty​ ​v.​ ​International​​Airport​​Authority​​of​​India​​[Ramana​​Dayaram​​Shetty​​v.​ ​International​ ​Airport​ ​Authority​ ​of​ ​India,​ ​(1979)​ ​3​ ​SCC​ ​489]​ ​was​ ​decided​ ​almost​ ​40​ ​years​ ​ago,​ ​namely,​ ​that​ ​the​ ​words​ ​used​ ​in​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​documents​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​ignored​ ​or​ ​treated​ ​as​ ​redundant​ ​or​ ​superfluous​ ​--​ ​they​ ​must​ ​be​ ​given​ ​meaning​ ​and​ ​their​ ​necessary​ ​significance.​​In​​this​​context,​​the​​use​​of​​the​​word​​"metro"​​in​​Clause​ ​4.2(a)​ ​of​ ​Section​ ​III​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bid​ ​documents​ ​and​ ​its​ ​connotation​ ​in​ ​ordinary parlance cannot be overlooked.​ ​ 5.​​We​​may​​add​​that​​the​​owner​​or​​the​​employer​​of​​a​​project,​​having​ 1 ​authored​​the​​tender​​documents,​​is​​the​​best​​person​​to​​understand​​and​ ​appreciate​ ​its​ ​requirements​ ​and​ ​interpret​ ​its​ ​documents.​ ​The​ ​constitutional​ ​courts​ ​must​ ​defer​ ​to​ ​this​ ​understanding​ ​and​ ​appreciation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​documents,​ ​unless​ ​there​ ​is​ ​mala​ ​fide​​or​ ​perversity​​in​​the​​understanding​​or​​appreciation​​or​​in​​the​​application​ ​of​​the​​terms​​of​​the​​tender​​conditions.​​It​​is​​possible​​that​​the​​owner​​or​ ​employer​ ​of​ ​a​ ​project​ ​may​ ​give​ ​an​ ​interpretation​ ​to​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​documents​​that​​is​​not​​acceptable​​to​​the​​constitutional​​courts​​but​​that​ ​by​ ​itself​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​reason​ ​for​ ​interfering​ ​with​ ​the​ ​interpretation​ ​given."​ 2​ 5.​ ​This​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​law​​has​​been​​subsequently​​reiterated​​and​ ​followed​ ​in​ ​Montecarlo​ ​Ltd.​​v.​​NTPC​​[(2016)​​15​​SCC​​272]​​(See​​para​​25​ ​at​ ​p.​ ​287)​ ​and​ ​Caretel​ ​Infotech​ ​Ltd.​ ​v.​ ​Hindustan​ ​Petroleum​ ​Corpn.​​Ltd.​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​23​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​[(2019) 14 SCC 81] ( See paras 38-39 at pp. 92-93)​ ​27.​ ​The​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​opined​ ​that,​ ​judging​ ​by​ ​the​ ​above​ ​parameters,​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​must​​defer​​to​​the​​understanding​​of​​the​​clauses​​in​​tender​​documents​ ​by​ ​the​ ​author​ ​thereof​ ​unless,​ ​pithily​ ​put,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​perversity​ ​in​ ​the​ ​author's​ ​construction of the documents or mala fides.​ ​28.​ ​The​ ​very​ ​same​ ​position​ ​was​ ​reiterated​ ​in​ ​B.S.N.​ ​Joshi​ ​&​ ​Sons​ ​Ltd.​ ​v.​ ​Nair​ ​Coal​ ​Services​ ​Ltd.​ ​(supra),​ ​wherein,​​in​​paragraph​​Nos.​​66​​and​​67,​​it​ ​was observed as under:​ "​ 66.​ ​We​ ​are​​also​​not​​shutting​​our​​eyes​​towards​​the​​new​​principles​ ​of​​judicial​​review​​which​​are​​being​​developed;​​but​​the​​law​​as​​it​​stands​​now​ ​having​​regard​​to​​the​​principles​​laid​​down​​in​​the​​aforementioned​​decisions​ ​may be summarised as under:​ (​ i)​ ​if​ ​there​ ​are​ ​essential​ ​conditions,​ ​the​ ​same​ ​must​ ​be​​adhered​ ​to;​ (​ ii)​ ​if​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​power​ ​of​ ​general​ ​relaxation,​ ​ordinarily​ ​the​ ​same​ ​shall​ ​not​ ​be​ ​exercised​ ​and​ ​the​ ​principle​ ​of​ ​strict​ ​compliance​ ​would​ ​be​ ​applied​ ​where​ ​it​ ​is​ ​possible​ ​for​ ​all​ ​the​ ​parties to comply with all such conditions fully;​ (​ iii)​​if,​​however,​​a​​deviation​​is​​made​​in​​relation​​to​​all​​the​​parties​ ​in​​regard​​to​​any​​of​​such​​conditions,​​ordinarily​​again​​a​​power​​of​ ​relaxation may be held to be existing;​ (​ iv)​ ​the​ ​parties​ ​who​ ​have​ ​taken​ ​the​ ​benefit​ ​of​ ​such​ ​relaxation​ ​should​ ​not​ ​ordinarily​ ​be​ ​allowed​ ​to​ ​take​ ​a​ ​different​ ​stand​ ​in​ ​relation​ ​to​ ​compliance​ ​with​ ​another​ ​part​ ​of​ ​tender​ ​contract,​ ​particularly​ ​when​​he​​was​​also​​not​​in​​a​​position​​to​​comply​​with​ ​all​ ​the​ ​conditions​ ​of​ ​tender​ ​fully,​ ​unless​ ​the​ ​court​ ​otherwise​ ​finds​ ​relaxation​ ​of​ ​a​ ​condition​ ​which​ ​being​​essential​​in​​nature​ ​could​ ​not​ ​be​ ​relaxed​​and​​thus​​the​​same​​was​​wholly​​illegal​​and​ ​without jurisdiction;​ (​ v)​ ​when​ ​a​ ​decision​​is​​taken​​by​​the​​appropriate​​authority​​upon​ ​due​ ​consideration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​document​​submitted​​by​​all​​the​ ​tenderers​ ​on​ ​their​ ​own​ ​merits​ ​and​​if​​it​​is​​ultimately​​found​​that​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​24​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ s​ uccessful​ ​bidders​ ​had​ ​in​ ​fact​ ​substantially​ ​complied​ ​with​ ​the​ ​purport​ ​and​ ​object​ ​for​ ​which​ ​essential​ ​conditions​ ​were​ ​laid​ ​down, the same may not ordinarily be interfered with;​ (​ vi)​ ​the​ ​contractors​ ​cannot​ ​form​ ​a​ ​cartel.​ ​If​ ​despite​ ​the​ ​same,​ ​their​ ​bids​ ​are​ ​considered​ ​and​ ​they​ ​are​ ​given​​an​​offer​​to​​match​ ​with​ ​the​ ​rates​ ​quoted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​lowest​ ​tenderer,​ ​public​ ​interest​ ​would be given priority;​ (​ vii)​​where​​a​​decision​​has​​been​​taken​​purely​​on​​public​​interest,​ ​the court ordinarily should exercise judicial restraint.​ ​67.​ ​Law​ ​operating​ ​in​ ​the​ ​field​ ​is​ ​no​ ​longer​ ​res​ ​integra.​ ​The​ a​ pplication​ ​of​ ​law,​ ​however,​ ​would​ ​depend​ ​upon​ ​the​ ​facts​ ​and​ ​circumstances​​of​​each​​case.​​It​​is​​not​​in​​dispute​​before​​us​​that​​there​​are​​only​ ​a​ ​few​ ​concerns​ ​in​ ​India​ ​who​ ​can​ ​handle​ ​such​ ​a​ ​large​ ​quantity​ ​of​ ​coal.​ ​Transportation​ ​of​ ​coal​ ​from​ ​various​ ​collieries​ ​to​ ​the​ ​thermal​ ​power​ ​stations​ ​is​ ​essential.​ ​For​ ​the​ ​said​ ​purpose,​ ​apart​ ​from​ ​transportation​ ​job,​ ​the​​contractor​​is​​required​​to​​see​​that​​coal​​of​​appropriate​​grade​​is​​supplied.​ ​The​​appellant​​herein​​is​​in​​business​​for​​the​​last​​52​​years.​​It​​had​​been​​taking​ ​part​​in​​contracts​​involving​​similar​​jobs​​in​​various​​parts​​of​​India.​​It​​had​​all​ ​along​ ​been​ ​quoting​ ​a​ ​low​ ​rate.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​it,​ ​despite​ ​the​ ​same​ ​it​ ​has​ ​been generating profits."​ ​29.​ ​Bearing​ ​in​ ​mind​​the​​principles​​of​​law​​laid​​down​​above,​​we​​shall​ ​now​​proceed​​to​​examine​​whether​​there​​has​​been​​any​​deviation​​from​​the​​terms​ ​and conditions of the NIT in respect of item Nos. 1, 3 and 85.​ ​30.​ ​From​ ​the​ ​stand​ ​taken​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​in​ ​their​ ​counter,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​evident​ ​that,​ ​under​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​notification,​ ​233​ ​Kuthaka​ ​items​ ​were​ ​notified​ ​for​ ​auction.​ ​The​ ​notification​ ​was​ ​published​ ​in​ ​all​ ​Kerala​ ​editions​ ​of​ ​three​ ​leading​ ​Malayalam​ ​dailies,​ ​Mathrubhoomi,​ ​Malayala​ ​Manorama,​ ​and​ ​Deshabhimani,​ ​and​ ​in​ ​all​ ​Tamil​ ​Nadu​ ​editions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Tamil​ ​daily,​ ​Dina​ ​Thanthi.​ ​The​ ​detailed​ ​notification,​ ​setting​ ​out​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​conditions​ ​and​ ​schedules,​ ​was​ ​also​ ​published​ ​on​ ​the​ ​official​ ​website​ ​of​ ​the​​TDB​​and​​on​​the​ ​Government of Kerala's e-tender web portal. This aspect is not in dispute.​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​25​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​31.​ ​It​ ​emerges,​ ​however,​ ​that​ ​a​ ​significant​ ​discrepancy​ ​arose​ ​concerning the last date and time for submission of bids.​ ​32.​ ​As​ ​per​ ​the​ ​newspaper​ ​publication,​ ​bidding​ ​was​ ​to​ ​commence​ ​at​ ​10:00​​a.m.​​on​​18.08.2025​​and​​close​​at​​11:00​​a.m.​​on​​27.08.2025.​​The​​scrutiny​ ​of​ ​technical​ ​bids​ ​was​ ​scheduled​ ​for​ ​11:00​ ​a.m.​ ​on​ ​28.08.2025,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​price​ ​bids​​of​​the​​successful​​bidders​​were​​to​​be​​opened​​at​​10:00​​a.m.​​on​​30.08.2025.​ ​It​​is​​undisputed​​that​​the​​portal​​was​​in​​fact​​closed​​at​​11:00​​a.m.​​on​​27.08.2025.​ ​The​​contention​​of​​the​​respondents​​is​​that​​an​​inadvertent​​error​​had​​occurred​​in​ ​Ext.P1.​​The​​detailed​​tender​​notification,​​published​​on​​the​​Board's​​website​​and​ ​the​​Government's​​web​​portal,​​wherein​​the​​closing​​time​​was​​mistakenly​​shown​ ​as​ ​11:00​ ​p.m.​ ​on​ ​27.08.2025.​ ​They​ ​claim​ ​to​ ​have​ ​received​ ​numerous​ ​telephone​ ​complaints​ ​about​ ​this​ ​discrepancy.​ ​However,​ ​no​ ​contemporaneous​ ​record​ ​or​ ​documentary​ ​proof​ ​of​ ​such​ ​complaints​ ​has​ ​been​ ​produced​ ​before​ ​this Court.​ ​33.​ ​In​ ​this​ ​backdrop,​ ​certain​ ​surrounding​ ​events​ ​raise​ ​a​ ​legitimate​ ​apprehension​ ​that​ ​the​ ​sanctity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​process​ ​may​ ​have​ ​been​ ​compromised.​​It​​is​​pleaded​​by​​the​​petitioners​​that​​they,​​having​​relied​​upon​​the​ ​newspaper​ ​advertisement,​ ​were​ ​waiting​ ​for​ ​the​ ​technical-bid​ ​opening​ ​scheduled​​only​​for​​30.08.2025.​​They​​contend​​that​​they​​had​​no​​reason​​to​​revisit​ ​the e-tender portal after the portal's closure at 11:00 a.m. on 27.08.2025.​ ​34.​ ​What​ ​followed​ ​is​ ​more​ ​troubling.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​unilaterally​ ​reopened​ ​the​ ​portal​ ​at​ ​7:08​ ​p.m.​ ​on​ ​27.08.2025,​ ​as​ ​is​ ​borne​ ​out​​from​​Ext.P6​ ​produced​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33867​ ​of​ ​2025,​ ​permitting​ ​submission​​of​​bids​​until​ ​6:00​ ​p.m.​ ​on​ ​28.08.2025.​ ​A​ ​corrigendum​ ​was​ ​uploaded​ ​only​ ​on​​the​​e-tender​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​26​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​portal,​​revising​​the​​closing​​date​​and​​shifting​​the​​technical-bid​​opening​​to​​9:00​ ​a.m.​ ​on​ ​29.08.2025.​ ​Admittedly,​ ​no​ ​public​ ​notice​ ​of​ ​this​ ​corrigendum​ ​was​ ​published​ ​in​ ​the​ ​newspapers,​ ​unlike​​the​​original​​tender​​notice.​​The​​petitioner​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33870​ ​of​ ​2025​ ​asserts​ ​that,​ ​had​ ​there​ ​been​ ​a​ ​public​ ​advertisement​ ​of​ ​the​ ​extension,​ ​he​ ​could​ ​have​ ​submitted​ ​his​ ​bid.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33867​ ​of​ ​2025​ ​similarly​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​corrigendum​ ​was​ ​communicated​ ​to​ ​him​ ​only​ ​after​ ​the​ ​extended​ ​period​ ​had​ ​lapsed,​ ​leaving​ ​him​ ​unaware​ ​of​ ​the​ ​change.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33971 of 2025 has also raised identical contentions.​ ​35.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​merit​ ​in​ ​the​​contention​​advanced​​by​​the​​petitioners​​that​ ​the​ ​reopening​ ​of​ ​the​ ​portal,​ ​without​ ​equal​ ​publicity,​ ​effectively​​allowed​​only​ ​those​ ​privy​ ​to​ ​the​ ​corrigendum,​ ​or​ ​those​ ​who​ ​happened​ ​to​ ​check​ ​the​ ​portal​ ​after​ ​closure,​ ​to​ ​submit​ ​or​​revise​​bids.​​This​​sequence​​of​​events,​​coupled​​with​ ​the​ ​absence​ ​of​ ​any​ ​recorded​ ​complaints​ ​necessitating​ ​such​ ​reopening,​ ​reasonably​​supports​​the​​contention​​that​​had​​there​​been​​a​​public​​announcement​ ​of​ ​the​ ​extension,​ ​the​ ​petitioners​ ​would​ ​have​​had​​an​​opportunity​​to​​raise​​their​ ​bids.​​The​​contention​​that​​this​​action​​has​​prevented​​an​​open,​​level​​playing​​field​ ​cannot be brushed aside.​ ​36.​ ​Furthermore,​ ​the​ ​timing​ ​of​ ​the​ ​corrigendum​ ​is​ ​significant.​ ​The​ ​reopening​​at​​7:08​​p.m.​​on​​27.08.2025,​​after​​the​​official​​closure,​​followed​​by​​a​ ​rescheduled​ ​technical-bid​ ​opening​ ​on​ ​29.08.2025,​ ​left​ ​barely​ ​a​ ​day​ ​between​ ​the​​new​​bid​​deadline​​and​​scrutiny.​​Those​​relying​​on​​the​​original​​schedule​​were​ ​effectively​​excluded.​​These​​facts​​lend​​weight​​to​​the​​petitioners'​​argument​​that​ ​the​ ​action​ ​was​ ​calculated​ ​to​ ​aid​ ​certain​ ​favoured​ ​bidders​ ​and​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​27​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​brushed aside as a mere administrative lapse.​ ​37.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​settled​ ​law​ ​that,​ ​as​ ​a​ ​general​ ​proposition,​ ​it​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​held​ ​that​ ​an​ ​authority​ ​inviting​ ​tenders​ ​is​ ​bound​ ​to​ ​give​ ​effect​ ​to​ ​every​ ​term​ ​mentioned​​in​​the​​notice​​in​​meticulous​​detail​​and​​is​​not​​entitled​​to​​waive​​even​​a​ ​technical​​irregularity​​of​​little​​or​​no​​significance.​​The​​requirements​​in​​a​​tender​ ​notice​ ​can​ ​be​ ​classified​ ​into​ ​two​ ​categories:​ ​those​ ​which​ ​lay​ ​down​ ​the​ ​essential​ ​conditions​ ​of​ ​eligibility​ ​and​ ​those​ ​which​ ​are​ ​merely​ ​ancillary​ ​or​ ​subsidiary​​to​​the​​main​​object​​to​​be​​achieved​​by​​the​​condition.​​In​​the​​first​​case,​ ​the​​authority​​issuing​​the​​tender​​may​​be​​required​​to​​enforce​​them​​rigidly.​​In​​the​ ​other​ ​cases,​ ​it​ ​must​ ​be​ ​open​​to​​the​​authority​​to​​deviate​​from​​and​​not​​to​​insist​ ​upon strict literal compliance in appropriate circumstances.​ ​38.​ ​We​​are​​of​​the​​considered​​view​​that​​the​​last​​date​​of​​submission​​of​ ​bids​​is​​an​​essential​​condition​​which​​cannot​​be​​tinkered​​with.​​The​​respondents​ ​contend​​that​​the​​date​​in​​the​​detailed​​tender​​document​​was​​erroneous,​​while​​the​ ​date​ ​in​ ​the​ ​newspaper​ ​advertisement​ ​was​ ​correct.​ ​If​ ​that​ ​be​ ​so,​ ​when​ ​the​ ​corrigendum​ ​was​ ​issued,​ ​it​ ​ought​ ​to​ ​have​ ​been​ ​published​ ​with​ ​the​ ​same​ ​prominence​​as​​the​​original​​notice,​​both​​in​​the​​newspapers​​and​​also​​on​​the​​web​ ​portal.​ ​Failure​ ​to​ ​do​ ​so​ ​undermines​ ​the​ ​transparency​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​process.​ ​Issuing​ ​the​ ​corrigendum​ ​solely​ ​on​ ​the​ ​e-tender​ ​portal,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​too​ ​after​ ​the​ ​original​​deadline​​had​​expired,​​ensured​​that​​only​​those​​who​​happened​​to​​revisit​ ​the​ ​portal​ ​after​ ​the​ ​initial​ ​closure​ ​or​ ​those​ ​people​ ​who​ ​were​ ​privy​ ​to​ ​the​ ​extension​​could​​benefit​​from​​the​​same.​​Prospective​​bidders​​who​​relied​​on​​the​ ​official​ ​newspaper​ ​advertisement​ ​and​ ​saw​ ​that​ ​the​ ​deadline​ ​had​ ​passed​ ​were​ ​effectively​​and​​wrongly​​excluded.​​It​​is​​difficult​​to​​believe​​that​​the​​TDB​​was​​in​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​28​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​the​​dark​​with​​regard​​to​​the​​discrepancy​​in​​the​​date​​and​​time​​and​​this​​had​​come​ ​to the knowledge only after the closure of the bid at 11 am on 27.08.2025.​ ​39.​ ​The​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​has​ ​repeatedly​ ​held​ ​that​ ​public​ ​authorities​​must​​scrupulously​​adhere​​to​​norms​​of​​fairness​​and​​equal​​treatment​ ​in tender matters.​ ​40.​ ​In​ ​Meerut​ ​Development​ ​Authority​ ​v.​ ​Association​ ​Of​ ​Management​ ​Studies​ ​And​ ​Another​​10​​,​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​had​ ​occasion​ ​to​ ​explain​ ​the​​law​​relating​​to​​the​​nature​​of​​rights​​of​​a​​bidder​​participating​​in​​the​ ​tender​​process,​​the​​scope​​of​​judicial​​review​​in​​contractual​​matters​​and​​whether​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​of​ ​the​​Authority​​is​​vitiated​​by​​any​​arbitrariness​​and​​therefore​​hit​ ​by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was observed as under:​ "​ 26.​​A​​tender​​is​​an​​offer.​​It​​is​​something​​which​​invites​​and​​is​ ​communicated​ ​to​ ​notify​ ​acceptance.​ ​Broadly​ ​stated​ ​it​ ​must​ ​be​ ​unconditional;​ ​must​ ​be​ ​in​ ​the​ ​proper​ ​form,​ ​the​ ​person​ ​by​ ​whom​ ​tender​ ​is​ ​made​ ​must​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​and​ ​willing​ ​to​ ​perform​ ​his​ ​obligations.​​The​​terms​​of​​the​​invitation​​to​​tender​​cannot​​be​​open​​to​ ​judicial​ ​scrutiny​ ​because​ ​the​ ​invitation​ ​to​ ​tender​​is​​in​​the​​realm​​of​ ​contract.​ ​However,​ ​a​ ​limited​ ​judicial​ ​review​ ​may​ ​be​ ​available​ ​in​ ​cases​​where​​it​​is​​established​​that​​the​​terms​​of​​the​​invitation​​to​​tender​ ​were​​so​​tailor-made​​to​​suit​​the​​convenience​​of​​any​​particular​​person​ ​with​​a​​view​​to​​eliminate​​all​​others​​from​​participating​​in​​the​​bidding​ ​process.​ 2​ 7.​ ​The​ ​bidders​ ​participating​ ​in​ ​the​​tender​​process​​have​​no​ ​other​ ​right​ ​except​ ​the​ ​right​ ​to​ ​equality​ ​and​ ​fair​ ​treatment​ ​in​ ​the​ ​matter​ ​of​ ​evaluation​ ​of​ ​competitive​ ​bids​ ​offered​ ​by​ ​interested​ ​persons​ ​in​ ​response​ ​to​ ​notice​ ​inviting​ ​tenders​ ​in​ ​a​ ​transparent​ ​manner​ ​and​ ​free​ ​from​ ​hidden​ ​agenda.​ ​One​ ​cannot​ ​challenge​ ​the​ ​terms​ ​and​ ​conditions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​except​ ​on​ ​the​ ​above​ ​stated​ ​10​ ​[2009 INSC 557]​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​29​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ g​ round,​​the​​reason​​being​​the​​terms​​of​​the​​invitation​​to​​tender​​are​​in​ ​the​​realm​​of​​the​​contract.​​No​​bidder​​is​​entitled​​as​​a​​matter​​of​​right​​to​ ​insist​​the​​authority​​inviting​​tenders​​to​​enter​​into​​further​​negotiations​ ​unless​ ​the​ ​terms​ ​and​ ​conditions​ ​of​ ​notice​ ​so​ ​provided​ ​for​ ​such​ ​negotiations.​ 2​ 8.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​so​ ​well​ ​settled​ ​in​ ​law​ ​and​ ​needs​​no​​restatement​​at​ ​our​ ​hands​ ​that​ ​disposal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​public​ ​property​ ​by​ ​the​ ​State​ ​or​ ​its​ ​instrumentalities​​partakes​​the​​character​​of​​a​​trust.​​The​​methods​​to​​be​ ​adopted​​for​​disposal​​of​​public​​property​​must​​be​​fair​​and​​transparent​ ​providing​ ​an​​opportunity​​to​​all​​the​​interested​​persons​​to​​participate​ ​in the process.​ 2​ 9.​​The​​Authority​​has​​the​​right​​not​​to​​accept​​the​​highest​​bid​ ​and​ ​even​ ​to​ ​prefer​ ​a​ ​tender​ ​other​ ​than​ ​the​ ​highest​ ​bidder,​ ​if​ ​there​ ​exist​ ​good​ ​and​ ​sufficient​ ​reasons,​ ​such​ ​as,​ ​the​ ​highest​ ​bid​ ​not​ ​representing​​the​​market​​price​​but​​there​​cannot​​be​​any​​doubt​​that​​the​ ​Authority's​​action​​in​​accepting​​or​​refusing​​the​​bid​​must​​be​​free​​from​ ​arbitrariness or favouritism."​ ​41.​ ​In​ ​Tata​ ​Cellular​ ​v.​ ​Union​ ​of​ ​India​​11​​,​ ​it​ ​was​ ​observed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​that​ ​while​ ​judicial​ ​review​ ​does​ ​not​ ​examine​ ​the​ ​merits​ ​of​ ​a​ ​decision,​ ​it​ ​will​ ​intervene​ ​where​ ​the​ ​decision-making​ ​process​ ​is​ ​"vitiated​ ​by​ ​mala fides, unreasonableness or arbitrariness."​ ​42.​ ​The​ ​circumstances​ ​that​ ​arise​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case,​ ​namely,​ ​the​ ​belated​ ​issuance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​corrigendum,​ ​the​ ​failure​ ​to​ ​publish​ ​it​ ​in​ ​newspapers,​ ​the​ ​advantage​ ​thereby​ ​conferred​ ​or​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​be​ ​conferred​ ​on​ ​a​ ​limited​ ​set​ ​of​ ​bidders,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​effective​ ​elimination​ ​of​ ​prospective​ ​bidders​ ​through​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​public​ ​advertisement,​ ​squarely​ ​raise​ ​the​ ​spectre​ ​of​​arbitrariness.​​The​​price​​of​ ​coconuts​ ​and​ ​flowers,​ ​commodities​ ​whose​ ​market​ ​value​ ​fluctuates​ ​significantly​​from​​day​​to​​day,​​makes​​the​​timing​​of​​bid​​submissions​​especially​ ​11​ ​[(1994) 6 SCC 651]​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​30​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​critical;​ ​any​ ​extension​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deadline​ ​could​ ​reasonably​ ​prompt​ ​bidders​ ​to​ ​revise​ ​their​ ​offers​ ​to​ ​reflect​ ​current​ ​market​ ​conditions.​ ​In​ ​this​ ​backdrop,​ ​the​ ​petitioners'​ ​contention​ ​that​ ​the​ ​corrigendum​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​in​ ​a​ ​manner​ ​tailor-made​ ​to​ ​suit​ ​the​ ​convenience​ ​of​ ​particular​ ​bidders,​ ​with​ ​the​ ​collateral​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​excluding​ ​bona​ ​fide​ ​participants,​ ​cannot​ ​be​​lightly​​brushed​​aside.​ ​Such​ ​conduct​ ​strikes​ ​at​ ​the​ ​very​ ​heart​ ​of​ ​competitive​ ​public​ ​procurement.​​A​ ​foundational​ ​principle​ ​of​ ​tendering​ ​is​ ​that​ ​all​ ​interested​ ​bidders​ ​must​ ​have​ ​equal​ ​and​ ​timely​ ​access​ ​to​ ​all​ ​material​ ​information.​ ​When​ ​a​ ​tender​ ​is​ ​originally​ ​publicised​ ​through​ ​multiple​ ​channels,​ ​any​ ​corrigendum,​ ​especially​ ​one​​extending​​the​​submission​​deadline,​​must​​be​​disseminated​​with​​at​​least​​the​ ​same​ ​level​ ​of​ ​publicity​ ​as​ ​the​ ​original​ ​notice.​ ​Restricting​ ​publication​ ​to​ ​the​ ​web​ ​portal​ ​alone​ ​is​ ​manifestly​ ​inadequate,​ ​inherently​ ​non-transparent,​ ​and​ ​inconsistent​ ​with​ ​the​ ​settled​ ​jurisprudence​ ​that​ ​public​ ​authorities​ ​must​ ​scrupulously​ ​ensure​ ​fairness​ ​and​ ​a​ ​level​ ​playing​ ​field​ ​in​ ​the​ ​award​​of​​public​ ​contracts.​ ​43.​ ​Further,​ ​the​ ​issuance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​corrigendum​ ​after​ ​the​ ​original​ ​deadline​​had​​already​​elapsed​​is​​fundamentally​​flawed.​​It​​alters​​the​​rules​​of​​the​ ​process​​after​​the​​game​​was,​​for​​many​​participants,​​already​​over.​​Jurisprudence​ ​is​ ​well-settled​ ​that​ ​where​ ​an​ ​amendment​ ​to​ ​a​​tender​​notice​​materially​​affects​ ​the​ ​bidding​ ​conditions​ ​after​ ​the​ ​deadline​ ​for​ ​submission,​ ​the​ ​appropriate​ ​course​ ​is​ ​to​ ​issue​ ​a​ ​fresh​ ​tender​ ​to​ ​avoid​ ​any​ ​appearance​ ​of​ ​impropriety​ ​or​ ​favouritism.​​While​​a​​mere​​extension​​of​​time​​may​​not​​be​​as​​drastic​​as​​changing​ ​specifications,​​the​​failure​​to​​provide​​adequate​​public​​notice​​of​​such​​extension​ ​is​​a​​serious​​procedural​​irregularity.​​We​​are​​of​​the​​view​​that​​the​ ​corrigendum​​is​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​31​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​legally​ ​sustainable​ ​only​ ​if​ ​it​ ​is​ ​issued​ ​in​​accordance​​with​​law​​and​​effectively​ ​communicated​ ​to​ ​all​ ​affected​ ​parties.​ ​An​ ​unfair​ ​and​ ​belated​ ​method​ ​of​ ​communication​ ​vitiates​ ​the​ ​extension​ ​itself.​ ​The​ ​process,​ ​as​ ​undertaken,​​was​ ​neither​​fair​​nor​​transparent​​and​​falls​​short​​of​​the​​standards​​required​​of​​a​​public​ ​tender.​​As​​held​​by​​the​​Apex​​Court​​in​​Meerut​​(supra),​​it​​is​​well​​settled​​in​​law​ ​and​ ​needs​ ​no​​restatement​​at​​our​​hands​​that​​disposal​​of​​the​​public​​property​​by​ ​the​​State​​or​​its​​instrumentalities​​partakes​​the​​character​​of​​a​​trust.​​The​​methods​ ​to​ ​be​ ​adopted​ ​for​ ​disposal​ ​of​ ​public​ ​property​ ​must​ ​be​ ​fair​ ​and​ ​transparent​ ​providing​ ​an​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​all​ ​the​ ​interested​ ​persons​ ​to​ ​participate​ ​in​ ​the​ ​process.​ ​The​ ​respondents,​ ​while​ ​issuing​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​and​ ​while​ ​finalising​ ​the​ ​successful​ ​bidder,​ ​were​ ​bound​ ​to​ ​follow​ ​transparent,​ ​non-discriminatory​ ​procedures​ ​consistent​ ​with​ ​Articles​ ​14​ ​and​ ​19(1)(g)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Constitution​ ​of​ ​India.​ ​44.​ ​In​​view​​of​​the​​discussion​​above,​​we​​are​​of​​the​​considered​​opinion​ ​that​ ​this​ ​is​ ​a​​fit​​case​​wherein​​this​​Court​​would​​be​​well​​justified​​in​​interfering​ ​with​ ​the​ ​tender​ ​process.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​not​ ​satisfied​ ​that​ ​the​ ​disposal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​public​ ​property​ ​in​​the​​instant​​case​​has​​been​​fair,​​transparent​​and​​beyond​​reproach​​as​ ​is warranted in law.​ ​45.​ ​Resultantly,​​these​​petitions​​are​​allowed.​ ​Ext.P1​​tender​​insofar​​as​ ​it​​concerns​​Item​​Nos.​​1,​​3​​and​​85​​therein​​and​​all​​further​​proceedings​​including​ ​the​ ​successful​ ​bid​ ​of​ ​the​ ​5th​ ​respondent​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.33971​ ​of​ ​2025,​ ​4th​ ​respondent​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33870​ ​of​ ​2025​ ​and​ ​respondent​ ​Nos.​ ​5​ ​and​ ​6​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​33867​ ​of​ ​2025​ ​will​ ​stand​ ​quashed.​ ​Interest​ ​of​ ​justice​ ​demands​ ​that​ ​the​ ​TDB​ ​re-tenders​ ​the​ ​collection​ ​of​ ​coconuts​ ​and​ ​supply​ ​of​​flowers​ ​in​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​32​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​Item​ ​Nos.​​1,​​3​​and​​85​​therein​​with​​a​​fresh​​calendar​​of​​the​​events​​by​ ​following the procedure.​ ​Before​ ​parting,​ ​we​ ​record​ ​our​ ​strong​​disapproval​​of​​the​​casual​​manner​ ​in​ ​which​ ​the​ ​Travancore​ ​Devaswom​ ​Board​ ​has​ ​conducted​ ​this​ ​tender.​​While​ ​acting​ ​as​ ​a​ ​trustee​ ​of​ ​the​ ​temple's​ ​offerings,​ ​the​ ​TDB​ ​is​ ​expected​ ​to​​adopt​​a​ ​solemn​ ​fiduciary​ ​duty​ ​to​ ​adopt​ ​procedures​ ​that​ ​secure​ ​the​ ​highest​ ​possible​ ​return​​for​​the​​coconut​​offerings.​​Any​​laxity​​or​​departure​​from​​the​​principles​​of​ ​fairness,​ ​transparency,​ ​and​ ​openness​ ​not​ ​only​ ​erodes​ ​public​ ​confidence​ ​but​ ​also​ ​undermines​ ​the​ ​very​ ​trust​ ​reposed​ ​in​ ​it​ ​as​ ​custodian​ ​of​ ​these​ ​sacred​ ​resources.​​We​​further​​observe​​that​​the​​Board​​is​​expected​​to​​act​​with​​far​​greater​ ​professionalism​ ​and​ ​vigilance​ ​in​ ​future​ ​and​ ​must​ ​scrupulously​ ​avoid​ ​a​ ​repetition of such lapses or similar follies.​ ​Sd/-​ ​RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,​ ​JUDGE​ ​Sd/-​ ​K.V. JAYAKUMAR,​ ​JUDGE​ ​PS/22/09/25​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​33​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33870/2025​ ​ PETITIONER EXHIBITS​ ​ EXHIBIT P1​ ​ ​RUE​ ​ T COPY​ ​ OF​ ​THE​ ​ TENDER​ ​NOTIFICATION​ ​DATED​ 18/08/2025​ ​ ​ PUBLISHED​ ​ IN​ ​MALAYALA​ ​ MANORAMA​ DAILY​ ​ EXHIBIT P2​ ​ THE​ ​ ​ GENERAL​ ​ CONDITIONS​ ​ CONCERNING​ ​ THE​ E-TENDER​ ​ ​ PUBLISHED​ ​ BY​ ​ THE​ ​ 2ND​ ​ RESPONDENT​ ​ON​ 14/08/2025​ ​ EXHIBIT P3​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​OF​ ​ THE​ ​ NOTIFICATION​ ​ FROM​ ​THE​ WEBSITE​​ ​ DATED​​27/08/2025​​ PUBLISHED​​BY​​ THE​​3RD​ RESPONDENT​ ​ ​ FOR​ ​EXTENSION​ ​NOTIFICATION​ ​ OF​ ​ EXT​ P1 TENDER​ ​ RESPONDENT EXHIBITS​ ​ EXHIBIT-R1(A)​ ​ ​RUE​ ​ T COPY​ ​OF​ ​ THE​ ​CORRIGENDUM​ ​ UPLOADED​ ​ IN​ KERALA​ ​ ​ TENDERS​ ​PERTAINING​ ​ TO​ ​ SL.NO.1​ ​ DATED​ 16.9.2025​ ​ EXHIBIT-R1(B)​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​OF​ ​THE​ ​AUTO​ ​ GENERATED​ ​EMAIL​ SIMULTANEOUSLY​ ​ ​ SENT​ ​ BY​ ​ KERALA​ ​ TENDERS​​TO​​ THE​ EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SABARIMALA DATED 27.8.2025​ ​ EXHIBIT-R1(C)​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ BID​​SUBMISSION​​ CONFIRMATION​ OF​ ​ ​ 4TH​ ​RESPONDENT​ ​ (BID​ ​ID​ ​ 2307354)​ ​DATED​ 29.8.2025​ ​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​34​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33867/2025​ ​ PETITIONER EXHIBITS​ ​ EXHIBIT P1​ ​ ​HE​ ​ T TRUE​ ​ COPY​ ​OF​ ​THE​ ​TENDER​ ​ CONDITIONS​ ​ AND​ SCHEDULE​ ​ ​ IN​ ​ TENDER​ ​ NO.ROC​ ​ 13/2025/SAB​ (കുത്തക)​​ ​ DATED​​ 14/08/2025​​ PUBLISHED​​ BY​​THE​ FIRST RESPONDENT​ ​ EXHIBIT P2​ ​ THE​ ​ ​ TRUE​ ​COPY​​ OF​​THE​​ EXTRACT​​ OF​​ THE​​ E-TENDER​ ADVERTISEMENT​ ​ ​ PUBLISHED​ ​ IN​ ​ THE​ ​ REGIONAL​ NEWSPAPERS ON 18/08/2025.​ ​ EXHIBIT P3​ ​ THE​ ​ ​ TRUE​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ BID​ ​ SUBMISSION​ CONFIRMATION​ ​ ​ AND​ ​ THE​ ​ ATTACHED​ ​ BOQ​ ​DATED​ 27/08/2025​​ ​ AT​​10:16​​ AM​​FOR​​ ITEM​​ NO.1​​ OBTAINED​ FROM​ ​ ​ THE​ ​ E-TENDERS​ ​ WEBSITE​ ​ OF​​THE​​ GOVERNMENT​ OF KERALA.​ ​ EXHIBIT P4​ ​ THE​ ​ ​ TRUE​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ BID​ ​ SUBMISSION​ CONFIRMATION​ ​ ​ AND​ ​ THE​ ​ ATTACHED​ ​ BOQ​ ​DATED​ 27/08/2025​ ​ ​ ON​ ​ 10:16​ ​ AM​ ​ FOR​ ​ ITEM​ ​ NO.85​ OBTAINED​ ​ ​ FROM​ ​ THE​ ​E-TENDERS​ ​ WEBSITE​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.​ ​ EXHIBIT P5​ ​ THE​ ​ ​ TRUE​ ​COPY​ ​OF​ ​THE​ ​EXTRACT​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​WEBSITE​ OF​​ ​ THE​​ 1ST​​RESPONDENT​​ SHOWING​​ THE​​CORRIGENDUM​ ON 08/09/2025.​ ​ EXHIBIT P6​ ​ THE​ ​ ​ TRUE​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ PUBLISHED​ ​ CORRIGENDUM​ DETAILS​ ​ ​ DATED​ ​ 09/09/2025​ ​ FOR​ ​ITEM​ ​ NO.​ ​ 85​ ​IN​ THE​ ​ ​ E-TENDER​ ​ WEBSITE​ ​ MAINTAINED​ ​ BY​ ​THE​ ​4TH​ RESPONDENT​ ​ EXHIBIT P7​ ​ THE​ ​ ​ TRUE​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ BID​ ​ SUBMISSION​ CONFIRMATION​ ​ ​ ALONG​ ​ WITH​ ​ THE​ ​ BOQ​ ​ DATED​ 26/08/2025​​ ​ AT​​3:34​​ PM​​FOR​​ITEM​​ NO.85​​ OBTAINED​ FROM​ ​ ​ THE​ ​ E-TENDERS​ ​ WEBSITE​ ​ OF​​THE​​ GOVERNMENT​ OF KERALA.​ ​ EXHIBIT P8​ ​ THE​ ​ ​ TRUE​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ BID​ ​ SUBMISSION​ CONFIRMATION​ ​ ​ DATED​ ​ 26/08/2025​ ​ AT​ ​ 3:41​​ PM​​FOR​ ITEM​​ ​ NO.1​​ OBTAINED​​ FROM​​ THE​​E-TENDERS​​ WEBSITE​ OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.​ ​ EXHIBIT P9​ ​ THE​ ​ ​ TRUE​ ​COPY​​ OF​​THE​​ EXTRACT​​ OF​​ THE​​ E-TENDER​ ADVERTISEMENT​ ​ ​ PUBLISHED​ ​ IN​ ​ THE​ ​ REGIONAL​ NEWSPAPERS ON 30/07/2025.​ ​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​35​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ RESPONDENT EXHIBITS​ ​ EXHIBIT-R1(A)​ ​ ​RUE​ ​ T COPY​ ​OF​ ​ THE​ ​CORRIGENDUM​ ​ UPLOADED​ ​IN​ KERALA​ ​ ​ TENDERS​ ​PERTAINING​ ​ TO​ ​ SL.NO.1​ ​DATED​ 16.9.2025​ ​ EXHIBIT-R1(B)​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​OF​ ​THE​ ​AUTO​ ​ GENERATED​ ​ EMAIL​ SIMULTANEOUSLY​ ​ ​ SENT​ ​ BY​ ​ KERALA​ ​ TENDERS​​ TO​​ THE​ EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SABARIMALA DATED 27.8.2025​ ​ EXHIBIT-R1(C)​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ BID​​SUBMISSION​​ CONFIRMATION​ OF​ ​ ​ 4TH​ ​RESPONDENT​ ​ (BID​ ​ID​ ​ 2307354)​ ​ DATED​ 29.8.2025​ ​ EXHIBIT R5(A)​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​OF​ ​ THE​ ​BID​ ​ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT​ ​ DATED​ 25-08-2025​ ​ ​ GENERATED​ ​FROM​ ​ THE​ ​ WEBSITE​​ OF​​ THE​ 4TH RESPONDENT​ ​ EXHIBIT R5(B)​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ BID​​SUBMISSION​​ CONFIRMATION​ DATED​ ​ ​ 25-08-2025​ ​GENERATED​ ​FROM​ ​THE​ ​ WEBSITE​ OF 4TH RESPONDENT​ ​ ​2025:KER:72979​ ​36​ ​ P(C) Nos.33870/2025,​ W ​33867/2025, 33971/2025​ APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33971/2025​ ​ PETITIONER EXHIBITS​ ​ EXHIBIT P1​ ​ ​RUE​ ​ T COPY​ ​OF​ ​THE​ ​TENDER​ ​DOCUMENT​ ​DATED​ 14.08.2025 ALONG WITH THE SCHEDULE​ ​ EXHIBIT P2​ ​ TRUE​​ ​ COPY​​ OF​​THE​​BIDS​​ SUBMISSION​​ CONFIRMATION​ DATED 23.08.2025​ ​ EXHIBIT P3​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​THE​ ​ EMAIL​​ INTIMATION​​ PUBLISHING​ THE NEW CORRIGENDUM DATED 29.08.2025​ ​ EXHIBIT P4​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​THE​​SCREENSHOT​​OF​​ THE​​TENDERING​ PROCESS​ ​ ​ DOWNLOADED​ ​ FROM​ ​ THE​ ​ E-TENDER​ ​ SYSTEM​ OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DATED 11.09.2025​ ​ EXHIBIT P5​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​OF​ ​COMMUNICATION​ ​ DATED​ ​13.09.2025​ ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS​ ​ RESPONDENT EXHIBITS​ ​ EXHIBIT R2(A)​ ​ ​RUE​ ​ T COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​​ADVERTISEMENT​​ OF​​ THE​​ TENDER​ NOTIFICATION​ ​ ​ VIDE​ ​R.O.C.​ ​ 53/2025/SABA​ ​DATED​ 18.08.2025​ ​ ​ PUBLISHED​ ​ IN​ ​MALAYALA​ ​ MANORAMA​ DAILY​ ​ EXHIBIT R2(B)​ ​ TRUE​​ ​ COPY​​OF​​ THE​​CORRIGENDUM​​ DETAILS​​ UPLOADED​ PERTAINING​ ​ ​ TO​ ​SL.NO.3​ ​ISSUED​ ​FROM​ ​ KERALA​ TENDERS​ ​ EXHIBIT R2(C)​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​OF​ ​THE​ ​AUTO​ ​ GENERATED​ ​EMAIL​ SIMULTANEOUSLY​​ ​ SENT​​TO​​ THE​​EXECUTIVE​​ OFFICER,​ SABARIMALA DATED 27.8.2025​ ​ EXHIBIT R2(D)​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ BID​​SUBMISSION​​CONFIRMATION​ OF​ ​ ​ M.​ ​VIJAYAKUMAR​ ​ (BID​ ​ID​ ​ 2305120)​ ​ DATED​ 29.8.2025 ISSUED BY KERALA TENDERS​ ​ EXHIBIT R2(E)​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ BID​​SUBMISSION​​CONFIRMATION​ OF​ ​ ​ SURENDRAN​ ​ NAIR​ ​ (BID​ ​ID​ ​ 2309270)​ ​ DATED​ 29.8.2025 ISSUED BY KERALA TENDERS​ ​