Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Per contra, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that in matters of tender, the Tender Committee should have a say. It consists of the experts and they evaluate the technical bids. Once they evaluate the technical bids and come to the conclusion, the scope for this court to interfere under Article 226 is very less. In this matter, the Tender Committee had considered the aspects that the contract is a long standing contract. The company that enters the fray should have a robust financial background and backup. Even the case of the petitioner is not a straight case that the petitioner or its consortium partner is having the turn over. The petitioner, being the lead partner, is claiming the said Sherisha Technologies Private Limited as its associate. It can be seen that it is claimed to be an associate only because of its share holding in the holding company. When it holds only 44% in the holding company, no exception whatsoever can be taken for the Tender Committee to restrict the turn over only up to 44%. As a matter of fact, the entire tender process is being conducted in a transparent manner. M/s.ITCOT were also appointed as an expert consultant to advice through the entire process. Therefore, only on their expert suggestions and advices, the Tender Committee along with the other experts have taken a decision. This court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 02:54:34 pm ) should not, in exercise of power under Article 226, supplant the views of the Expert Committee with of its own and therefore, there is no arbitrariness or unfairness in the entire exercise and therefore, there is nothing for this court to interfere in the matter.