Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 10 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Raj.G, a goldsmith residing at New No.5, Old No.18, Subbu Chetty Street, Wall Tax Road, Park Town, Chennai. Respondents – (1) Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation Limited (TNMSC) represented by its Managing Director, (2) Joyalukkas India Limited, and (3) Kalyan Jewellers Limited.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash the award of contract dated 21‑08‑2026 and Letter of Acceptance No.E1553/TMTMT/RC/TNMSC/ENGG/2026 for the supply of 4,41,667 one‑gram, twenty‑two‑carat gold rings under the Government of Tamil Nadu welfare scheme “Thaimaman Thanga Mothiram Thittam”.
  • Tender Details: Tender Reference No.E1553/TMTMT/RC/TNMSC/ENGG/2026 issued on 13‑07‑2026 by TNMSC on behalf of the Health and Family Welfare Department, inviting rate‑contract bids for one‑year supply of the specified rings.
  • Corrigenda:
  • 08‑08‑2026 – Revised price‑schedule format: collapsed seven cost heads (discount on benchmark gold rate, making charges, packing, insurance, transportation, other incidental charges, GST) into a single “charges per ring” figure, exclusive of gold price payable at prevailing IBJA rate; also altered qualification criteria, deleted sample‑approval requirement, Manufacturer’s Undertaking Letter, and certain seller‑bidder documents.
  • 10‑08‑2026 – Increased bid security from Rs 5,00,000 to Rs 3,75,00,000.
  • Bids Received: Eleven bids were technically evaluated and financially opened. Rates (charges per ring, exclusive of gold) and ranking were:

1. Joyalukkas India Ltd – Rs 0.01 (L1)

2. GRT Jewellers India Pvt Ltd – Rs 410.97 (L2)

3. Vummidi Bangaru Jewellers (India) Pvt Ltd – Rs 822.97 (L3)

4. Titan Company Ltd – Rs 832.24 (L4)

5. Malabar Gold and Diamonds Ltd – Rs 871.38 (L5)

6. Emerald Jewel Industry India Ltd – Rs 947.60 (L6)

7. The KTM Jewellery Ltd – Rs 964.08 (L7)

8. Mohanlal Jewellers Private Ltd – Rs 977.47 (L8)

9. Kalyan Jewellers Ltd – Rs 978.50 (L9)

10. Zaveri and Company Private Ltd – Rs 1,325.61 (L10)

11. Saravana Stores (Jewel) Super Ltd – Rs 15,356.27 (L11)

  • Award Mechanism: Clause 5.7 of the tender stipulated that the lowest responsive bidder (L1) be called for negotiation and that the Tender Accepting Authority could, at its discretion, award the contract to the L1 bidder or empanel technically qualified bidders at the L1 rate (Clause 5.7(viii)). The L1 rate of Rs 0.01 was placed before the remaining ten bidders; nine did not match it. Kalyan Jewellers Ltd (the third respondent) matched the rate, reducing its quoted rate from Rs 978.50 to Rs 0.01. The Award of Contract dated 21‑08‑2026 recorded a total contract value of Rs 0.01 and the Letter of Acceptance was issued solely to Joyalukkas India Ltd. Kalyan Jewellers’ bid appears on the tender portal as “Rejected‑AOC” with the remark “Matched L1”.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions:
  • The one‑paisa rate is “speculative” and should have been rejected as non‑responsive under Clause 5.8(vi) and Rule 29‑A of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000.
  • TNMSC, whose Memorandum of Association limits its objects to medicines, drugs and hospital equipment, lacks vires to procure bullion or jewellery.
  • Respondent’s Defence: The petitioner does not challenge the scheme, any tender condition, or the L1 selection mechanism; only the award outcome is contested. The petition’s prayer is internally inconsistent – it claims TNMSC lacks competence yet asks the Court to direct TNMSC to re‑procure through a competent entity.
  • Judicial Review Framework Cited: The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s judgments in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994 6 SCC 651) and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2012 8 SCC 216), emphasizing the narrow scope of judicial review in tender/contract matters, the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness, and the limited circumstances for interference (arbitrariness, mala‑fide, irrationality, or public‑interest impact).
  • Court’s Reasoning: The petitioner accepts the entire tender architecture and only challenges the final award; there is no evidence of arbitrariness, bias, or mala‑fide. The petitioner lacks standing as a stranger to the tender, and none of the actual bidders have raised objections. The inconsistency in pleading lack of vires while seeking the same authority to re‑procure further weakens the case.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The connected interim application is closed. The award and Letter of Acceptance remain valid.

Topics: Public Procurement, Judicial Review