Dismissed¶28

Aczet Private Limited v. Indian Overseas Bank

Madras HC1 Apr 2026WP/48126/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ petition dismissed; tender notification challenge; GeM Bid No.GEM/2025/B/6749353 dated 03.10.2025; Indian Overseas Bank procurement of 149 units Gold Purity testing meter / karat meter (Q2); technical bid disqualified; bidder who participated cannot challenge entire tender after award; remedy confined to challenging own disqualification; AERB licence OEM criterion; complaint to GeM unacted upon; Article 226 Certiorarified Mandamus; liberty reserved; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to challenge the disqualification of its technical bid in the manner known to law; dismissal with no costs and closure of the connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No. 53780 of 2025). ¶28

Aczet Private Limited Vs Indian Overseas Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 48126 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

WP No. 48126 of 2025 and WMP NO. 53780 OF 2025

¶7

Aczet Private Limited Rep By Its Director, Mr.Sanjay Shah, Unit No.E2, Plot No.15, Wicel Estate, Opp. Seepz Gate No.1, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 093.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Indian Overseas Bank Rep By Its Authorised Representative, General Administration Department, No.763, Anna Salai, Mount Road, Chennai-600 002.

¶11

Government E- Marketplace (GEM) SPV Rep by.its Chief Executive Officer, 3^rd Floor, Tower- II, Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi- 110 001.

¶12

..Respondents)

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the 1^st Respondent culminating in Tender bearing Bid No.GEM/2025/ B/ 6749353 dt 03.10.2025 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and pass.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, Sr.Counsel for M/s. Prarish Legal

¶15

Page1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 48126 of 2025

¶18

For Respondent(s): Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Assistant Solicitor General assisted by Mr.P.V.Muralidhar

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Tender Notification issued by the 1^st respondent dated 03.10.2025.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent floated a tender bearing Bid No.GEM/2025/B/6749353 dated 03.10.2025 on the website operated by the 2nd respondent for procurement of 149 units of "Gold Purity testing meter / karat meter (Q2)". Interested / qualified / eligible bidders were required to submit their respective technical and price bid. One of the technical criterions for the impugned tender is that the bidder must obtain a valid licence from Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) in the name of the OEM. Upon noticing these misdeclarations, the petitioner gave a complaint dated 01.11.2025 to the 2^nd respondent and despite receiving the complaint, the 2^nd respondent has miserably failed to initiate any action against the competitor. Thus the 1^st respondent has indulged in blatant favouritism in both determining the technical criterion as well as in the manner of evaluation the said technical criterion. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶22

__________ Page2 of 5

¶23

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

¶24

WP No. 48126 of 2025

¶25

The first respondent has filed a counter stating that the 1^st respondent

¶26

bank has meticulously followed the norms of the bank and tender terms and conditions and rejected the petitioner’s tender. The 1^st respondent bank, after verifying the certificate issued by the Central Government of India and after due compliance with the terms and conditions of the tender, selected the competitor and in order to honour this Court, the bank has not opened the tender.

¶27

The fact remains that the petitioner’s technical bid has been disqualified by the first respondent bank. The petitioner having participated in the entire tender process, cannot turn around and challenge the entire tender notification after awarding of tender to the successful competitor/bidder. If at all the petitioner is being aggrieved, they can very well challenge its disqualification and not the entire tender process / notification.

¶28

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the disqualification of the petitioner’s technical bid in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

01-04-2026

¶30

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ssb

¶31

__________ Page3 of 5

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 48126 of 2025

¶34

¶35

Indian Overseas Bank

¶36

Rep By Its Authorised Representative, General Administration Department, No.763, Anna Salai, Mount Road, Chennai-600 002.

¶37

Government E- Marketplace (GEM) SPV Rep by.its Chief Executive Officer, 3^rd Floor, Tower- II, Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi- 110 001.

¶38

__________ Page4 of 5

¶39

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

WP No. 48126 of 2025

M.DHANDAPANI J.

ssb

W.P.No. 48126 of 2025 and W.M.P.No. 53780 of 2025