Disposed¶38

A. Paul Software Systems Pvt. Ltd., v. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.

Madras HC11 Mar 2026WP/14419/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chennai Metro Rail Ltd; e-NIT No. CMRL-RSP-001-2024 dated 02.02.2024; clause 7.2 / clause 7(2) tender condition; mainline Railways experience vs Metro Rolling Stock; LED backlit LCD Dynamic Route Map Display (DRMD); 52 trains CMRL Phase-1; writ of declaration; rejection of candidature; infructuous prayer; writ petition closed with liberty; prior W.P.No.12447 of 2024 and W.P.No.14374 of 2024; A. Paul Software Systems Pvt Ltd; Raksha Kumari Bahl; M. Dhandapani J; Madras High Court; 11-03-2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed (prayer infructuous) with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the tender notification if their application is not considered in future tenders in view of the orders passed by this Court; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P. Nos. 15684 & 15685 of 2024) closed. ¶38

A. Paul Software Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs Chennai Metro… — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether persons having relevant experience in mainline Railways are also eligible to participate under clause 7.2 of the Tender Condition in e-Tender e-NIT No. CMRL -RSP - 001- 2024 dated 02.02.2024.

¶17

Court's answer

The process of the tender has been completed and the prayer sought for in the petition has already been answered in the earlier round of litigations.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The prayer sought in the present petition has become infructuous and the petition is liable to be closed.

¶37

Key takeaways

The petitioners are at liberty to challenge the tender notification if their application has not been considered in future tenders in view of the orders passed by this Court.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, W.P.No.14419 of 2024 (with W.M.P. Nos. 15684 & 15685 of 2024), M. Dhandapani J., 11-03-2026 — Tender eligibility / writ of declaration. Petitioners (A. Paul Software Systems Pvt Ltd., an OEM in Public Address & Passenger Information Systems, Passenger Information Display Systems and CCTV, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and a shareholder) sought a declaration that persons having relevant experience in mainline Railways are also eligible under clause 7.2 of the Tender Condition in e-NIT No. CMRL-RSP-001-2024 dated 02.02.2024 issued by Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. for Design, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of LED backlit LCD based Dynamic Route Map Display (DRMD) in 52 trains of CMRL Phase-1. Clause 7(2) required predominant business in Metro Rolling Stock works with LED/LCD based dynamic route maps; the first petitioner's candidature was rejected as its experience was only in mainline railways. Third round of litigation: W.P.No.12447 of 2024 was disposed of with a direction that any application filed be considered per the tender notification conditions; W.P.No.14374 of 2024 was dismissed as infructuous on 09.01.2026, the tender having been awarded. Held: the tender process stands completed, the prayer was already answered in the earlier round and has become infructuous; the writ petition is closed without costs, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to challenge the tender notification if their application is not considered in future tenders in view of the orders passed by this Court; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P.No.14419 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

WP No. 14419 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P. Nos. 15684 & 15685 of 2024

¶8

A. Paul Software Systems Pvt Ltd.,

¶9

A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At D-6/3 Okhla Indsustrial Area Phase- I, New Delhi110020 Rep By Its Authorized Signatory Amit

¶10

Gangwar .

¶11

Raksha Kumari Bahl

¶12

W/o. (late) Virendra Singh Bahl, Shareholder, A.Paul Software Systems Pvt. Ltd., D-6/3 Okhla Indsustrial Area Phase- I, New Delhi- 110020 Rep By Power Of Attorney Holder Amit Gangwar

¶13

..Petitioner(s)

¶14

¶15

Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. Metros, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai- 35 Through Its Chief General Manager (rolling Stock)

¶16

..Respondent(s)

¶17

PRAYER: To issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that persons having relevant experience in mainline Railways are also eligible to participate under clause 7.2 of the Tender Condition in e- Tender being e- NIT No. CMRL -RSP - 001- 2024 dated 02.02.2024.

¶18

1/6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.14419 of 2024 For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Bharadwajaramasubramaniam for M/s.Vivrti Law For Respondent(s): Mr. B.Vijay

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of declaration declaring that persons having relevant experience in mainline Railways are also eligible to participate under clause 7.2 of the Tender Condition in e- Tender being e- NIT No. CMRL -RSP - 001- 2024 dated 02.02.2024.

¶23

2.The facts of the case in brief is that the first petitioner is a private limited company on approved International Railway Industry Original Equipment Manufacturer of inter-alia Public Address & Passenger Information Systems, Passenger Information Display Systems and Closed-Circuit Television Systems. While so, the respondent issued a tender notification inviting application for Design, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of LED backlit LCD based Dynamic Route Map Display (DRMD) in 52 trains of CMRL Phase – 1 Section and the petitioner company participated in the tender. However, as per clause 7(2) of the tender conditions, the tenderer shall predominantly be in the business related to works in Metro Rolling Stock with LED or LCD based dynamic route maps along with control system and since, the petitioner company had experience only in

¶24

2/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.14419 of 2024 the main line railways and not in the metro rail, his candidature was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶27

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner company is the number one private limited company on approved International Railway Industry Original Equipment Manufacturer of inter-alia Public Address & Passenger Information Systems, Passenger Information Display Systems and Closed-Circuit Television Systems and is technically competent in such systems and possess extensive experience in supplying such systems. However, the candidature of the petitioner company has been merely rejected for the reason that he has got experience only in the Mainline Railways which would not meet the evaluation and qualification criteria for the project as per clause 7(2) of the tender conditions and since the petitioner company has got sufficient qualification in the Mainline Railways, the same may be considered and sought for allowing the petition.

¶28

4.However, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the earlier occasion, the petitioner company had preferred W.P.No.12447 of 2024 seeking for a declaration declaring that the persons having relevant experience in

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.14419 of 2024 Mainline Railways are also eligible to participate in the e-tender dated 02.02.2024

¶32

and this court has passed an order stating that the petitioner company has not even submitted his application to participate in the tender and if at all application is filed by the petitioner company, the same shall be considered in terms with the conditions specified in the tender notification and the petition was disposed of. Accordingly, the petitioner company’s application has been considered and his candidature was rejected. Subsequent to the said rejection, the petitioner company has again filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14374 of 2024 and this Court has dismissed the petition as infructuous on 09.01.2026 as the tender in question has already been awarded and now the petitioner company has again preferred this writ petition with the similar prayer with an attempt to stall the tender process and to harass the successful tenderer. It is further submitted that merely because the petitioner company is not eligible to participate in the tender, clause 7.2 of the tender conditions cannot be sought to be modified which will open up a new round of litigations and it is also submitted that there are eligible persons to participate in the tender satisfying the tender conditions. Thus, the learned counsel sought for dismissing the petition.

¶33

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶34

4/6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.14419 of 2024

¶37

6.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that process of the tender has been completed and the prayer sought for in the petition has already been answered in the earlier round of litigations and the prayer sought in the present petition has also become infructuous and this petition is liable to be closed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the present prayer has become infructuous, in future, if any application has been preferred by the petitioner company, the same may not be rejected by the respondent in view of the orders passed by this Court. In view of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the tender notification, if the application of the petitioners has not been considered in the future tenders in view of the orders passed by this court.

¶38