Petitioner bid in an LPG bulk transportation tender quoting 0% price by mistake and later sought to revise it to L1 rate (-5%). The tender clause barred unsolicited revision, so her bid was disqualified. The Court held no mandamus could compel reconsideration and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD).No.25051 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.25051 of 2025
Salma Begam
...Petitioner
Vs
HPCL (South Zone) Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, 8 Gandhi – Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's bid with corrected pricing at L1 rate (-5 percent on base rate) for Tender No.2400019406-HD-09050 dated 22.04.2025 BULK LPG TRANSPORATION TAMILNADU 2025-30 and direct the respondents to process the petitioner's corrected bid in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.
1/5
W.P.(MD).No.25051 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.A.C.Namburaj
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sridhar Standing Counsel
O R D E R
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Mandamus directing
the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner to correct the bid
pricing at L1 rate (-5 percent on base rate) for Tender.
2. A perusal of the records reveal that the petitioner has submitted her bid on 22.04.2025. At the time of submission, the petitioner has selected 0%
as bid price, which represents L1 rate of the contract.
3. According to the petitioner, this has happened due to inexperience of the computer operator engaged by the consultant, and this was purely an unintended mistake due to operator's inexperience.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 09.09.2025 seeking to correct her mistakes and to allow her to match the L1 rate of -5% on the base price before issuing letter of intent. Citing this letter,
2/5
W.P.(MD).No.25051 of 2025
the bid of the petitioner has been disqualified and it was not opened. Hence,
the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court Clause 3.7 in the tender notification, which is extracted as follows:
“Tenderer must not resort to unsolicited revision of Price Bid. Any type pf unsolicited revision will disqualify the tenderer. Hence based on the above conditions the “Price Revision as per the petitioners' Request cannot be entertained.”
6. Admittedly, the petitioner has quoted erroneous price at the time of submitting Bid and after noticing the same submitted a representation dated 09.09.2025 to revise her Bid. Therefore, as per the tender conditions, the petitioner has got herself disqualified. In such circumstances, a Mandamus cannot be issued as against the authorities to reconsider the Price Bid.
3/5
W.P.(MD).No.25051 of 2025
7. With the above said observation, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
01.12.2025
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi
To
1.The General Manager, HPCL (South Zone) Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, 8 Gandhi – Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008.
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, 8 Gandhi – Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008.
4/5
W.P.(MD).No.25051 of 2025
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
W.P(MD)No.25051 of 2025
01.12.2025
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to consider a corrected bid price after unsolicited revision disqualified the bidder under tender conditions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Salma Begam
The General Manager- LPG HPCL (South Zone)
The Deputy General Manager (LPG-Distribution), HPCL (South Zone)
R.Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
