Madras High Court
Varun Sriram vs Union Of India on 17 July, 2026
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.07.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
and WMP Nos.31097 and 31098 of 2026
Varun Sriram
S/o.Sreedhar,
No.27, Eswarmurthi Layout,
First Street, Karuvampalayam,
Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu-641 604.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Union of India
Rep by the Secretary,
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs,
Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi-110 011.
2. Union of India
Rep by the Secretary,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
3. Central Vigilance Commission
Rep by its Secretary,
Satarkta Bhawan, GPO Complex,
Block-A, INA, New Delhi-110 023.
______________
Page 1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
4. Competition Commission of India,
Thru its Secretary, 9th Floor,
Office Block-1, Kidwai Nagar (East),
New Delhi - 110023.
5. Comptroller and Auditor General of India,
Thru the Competent Officer,
9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi - 110124.
6. NBCC (India) Limited,
Thru its Chairman and Managing Director,
NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi – 110003.
Also having its Regional Office.
Bakthavatchalapuram, Avadi, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu-600 054.
7. HSCC (India) Limited,
Thru its Managing Director,
E-6(A), Sector-1, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh - 201301.
8. Chennai Port Trust,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600 001.
9. Chennai Port Trust Hospital,
Rep. by its Chief Medical Officer,
Chennai Port Trust Hospital,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus (a) calling for
the records of the 6th Respondent in connection with impugned Notice
Inviting e-Tender dated 29.06.2026 and consequential Corrigendum/
Addendum-02, dated 10.07.2026 and Corrigendum/Addendum-03,
______________
Page 2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
dated 13.07.2026 and so for in connection with Clause 3.8 of the
Revised SOP of the 3rd Respondent and to quash the same as
arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional; (b) To issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction declaring that no Government-controlled entity,
Central Public Sector Undertaking, Government company, subsidiary,
associate, group entity or any other empanelled entity shall be
permitted to participate in a bidding process as an independent bidder
unless the procuring authority has first undertaken due and effective
verification of any overlapping ownership, beneficial ownership,
common administrative or institutional control, parent-subsidiary or
group relationship, common directors or nominee directors, common
shareholders, common Board-level or senior-management oversight,
family or business association, and common digital, portal, payment or
operational infrastructure, and has recorded a reasoned determination
that such participation does not impair genuine competition,
transparency, fairness or the integrity of the bidding process; (c) To
issue an appropriate writ, order or declaration that the Independent
External Monitor mechanism under Clauses 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.12 and
5.13 of the Revised SOP is advisory and supplemental in nature and
shall not operate as a mandatory first forum, a screening mechanism
prior to approaching a statutory authority, a substitute for an
independent investigation, or a means of delaying, mediating, settling
or closing allegations concerning corruption, collusive bidding, bid
rigging, false declarations, conflict of interest, official complicity or loss
to the public exchequer, and further direct that the Integrity Pact,
including the obligations relating to beneficial-ownership disclosure,
conflict disclosure, anti-collusion compliance, cooperation with audit
and investigation, and preservation of evidence, shall be strictly
enforced against all bidders, contractors, joint-venture partners and
material subcontractors; (d) directing Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4,
within their respective statutory jurisdictions and in coordination,
wherever legally permissible, with Respondent Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7, to
independently examine the verified material relating to the subject
procurement, conduct or cause to be conducted a time-bound inquiry
and forensic examination, and determine whether the empanelled or
participating bidders were genuinely independent, whether any official,
intermediary or connected entity facilitated an anti-competitive or
otherwise unlawful arrangement, and whether proceedings,
information, reference, vigilance action, audit or any other action
under the applicable statutory framework are warranted; (e) directing
Respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 to preserve, disclose and produce before
______________
Page 3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
the competent statutory authorities the complete procurement and
electronic record relating to the subject HSCC empanelment process
and Tender ID 2026_NBCC_843246_1/Tender No. NBCC/CHPA/
Hospital/2026/26, including the Notice Inviting Tender, Expression of
Interest, Integrity Pact, corrigenda, bid and evaluation records,
beneficial-ownership declarations, conflict-of-interest disclosures,
bidder eligibility and due-diligence records, server logs, user-account
histories, bid-upload metadata, digital-signature identifiers, payment
records, communications, file notings, IEM records, CVO records and
the approval chain, and consequently direct the competent
respondents to take a reasoned and time-bound decision upon such
material in accordance with law; (f) To award costs and to pass such
or other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper
in the interest of justice, constitutional governance and probity in
public procurement; (g) to pass such other or further orders as this
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.MA.Gouthaman
For Respondent(s):Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Additional Solicitor General of India
Assisted by Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
Senior Panel Counsel
for R1 to R3, R5 and R6
Mr.A.Kumaraguru
for R8 and R9
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)
This writ petition, styled as public interest litigation, is filed by
a practising advocate seeking interference with the tender
participation process by Central Public Sector Undertakings alleging
collusive bidding, cartelization, bid-rigging, breach of tender
______________
Page 4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
integrity and violation of fair competition principles. The petitioner
also seeks production of records, preservation of digital material, an
independent enquiry and restraint against further action under the
tender.
2.1. The main plank of the argument advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner is that respondent Nos.6 and 7 could not
have participated in the same tender as independent bidders, since
they allegedly have common ownership, common administrative or
institutional control, common Board-level/senior-level oversight,
common directors/ nominee directors, common shareholders/
beneficial ownership, parent-subsidiary/ group relationship, family
or business association and common digital/ portal/ payment
infrastructure.
2.2. It is further submitted that public procurement must be
fair, transparent and competitive and that, where competing entities
have common governance, shareholder, administrative or digital
linkages, the tendering authority ought to examine whether the bids
were independently prepared, approved and submitted. The
______________
Page 5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
relevant tender records, portal logs, IP logs, payment gateway
records, Board approvals, shareholding records, internal notes and
bid-submission records are in the custody of the respondents and,
therefore, the same ought to be called for by this court. In effect,
the petitioner does not seek a final finding of collusion/cartelization
at this stage, but seeks an enquiry into the tender process on the
basis of the aforesaid allegations.
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Solicitor General
argued that this petition, filed by a practising lawyer, is actually a
proxy litigation. To support this claim, he pointed out that the
petitioner has provided sensitive, internal documents that only an
industry insider, and not an outside lawyer, would be able to access.
4. The law relating to judicial review in tender matters is well
settled. This court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over the
decision of the tendering authority. The court is solely concerned
with the legality of the decision-making process and not with the
merits of the commercial decision.
______________
Page 6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
5. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India1, the Supreme Court held
that the modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative
action and that the Court does not sit as a court of appeal, but
merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
6. In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa 2, the Supreme Court
held that judicial review in tender matters is intended to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality, bias and mala fides, and that the power
of judicial review cannot be invoked to protect private interest at
the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes.
7. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Supreme
Court in the following cases: Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State
of Karnataka3; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail
Corporation Ltd4; Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of
India5; and N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain6.
1 (1994) 6 SCC 651
2 (2007) 14 SCC 517
3(2012) 8 SCC 216
4(2016) 16 SCC 818
5 (2020) 16 SCC 489
6(2022) 6 SCC 127
______________
Page 7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
8. The entertainability of the present writ petition must,
therefore, be tested on the limited parameters of arbitrariness,
mala fides, irrationality, violation of essential tender conditions or
demonstrable public injury.
9. Having examined the pleadings and the arguments, we find
that the petitioner has not placed on record any specific material
showing actual collusion, bid coordination, exchange of price-
sensitive information, common bid control, price fixing, market
allocation, suppression of a mandatory disclosure or manipulation of
the tender process in any manner.
10. There can be no qualms about the proposition that public
procurement must be fair, transparent and non-arbitrary. However,
the aforesaid principles do not mean that every tender involving
entities having some common ownership, common directors,
common shareholders, common family or business association,
common institutional connection or common digital infrastructure
must be interdicted. Article 14 of the Constitution of India requires
______________
Page 8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
fairness in the decision-making process. It does not authorize the
court to presume collusion merely from structural or relationship-
based commonality. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the
tendering authority acted arbitrarily, favoured any bidder, violated
an essential tender condition, ignored a mandatory disqualification,
or proceeded despite concrete material of collusive bidding.
11. In our view, collusion cannot be established only because
of existence of any common ownership, common directors, common
shareholders or institutional linkage. What must be shown is that
such linkage resulted in actual common bid control, exchange of bid
information, coordinated pricing or manipulation of the tender
process. In the public sector framework, more than one
Government company, subsidiary, joint venture, special purpose
vehicle, undertaking or Government-controlled entity may
participate in public procurement processes. Such entities may have
common Government ownership, common administrative ministries,
common nominee directors or common reporting structures. These
features are ordinary incidents of public sector governance and do
not, by themselves, establish cartelization.
______________
Page 9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
12. If the petitioner’s argument is accepted, every tender
involving two Government companies, related public sector entities,
private group companies, entities with common shareholders, or
entities having present or past common directors would become
vulnerable merely because of such structural or relational
commonality. Such a conclusion would be commercially
impracticable and legally unsustainable. Therefore, the relevant test
is not whether there exists some ownership, directorship,
shareholding, family, trust, group or institutional connection, but
there should be material to show that the bidders acted pursuant to
a common design to manipulate the tender process, exchange bid
information, control pricing, restrict competition or defeat the
integrity of the tender. In the instant case, no such material has
been placed before us. Moreover, it is the duty of the tender issuing
authority, be it Central Public Sector Undertaking or any other body,
to verify the veracity and genuineness of bidding entities at the time
of bidding.
______________
Page 10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
13. That apart, the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that participation by related entities, group entities,
subsidiaries or affiliates is impermissible, cuts no ice, in the absence
of any specific tender condition prohibiting such participation. A
disqualification cannot be read into a tender by implication. If the
tendering authority intended to prohibit participation by parent
companies, subsidiaries, group entities, affiliates, entities with
common shareholders, or entities under common Government or
private ownership, it was open to the tendering authority to
expressly provide so in the tender conditions.
14. In Uflex Ltd v. Government of Tamil Nadu7, the Supreme
Court dealt with allegations of financial/corporate linkage between
bidders and held that such linkage could not be treated as a
disqualification unless the tender terms made it so. The Supreme
Court also reiterated that tender disputes are commercial matters
and courts should exercise restraint in interfering with tender
awards. In the present case, the petitioner has not shown any
express tender condition prohibiting participation by entities merely
7 (2022) 1 SCC 165
______________
Page 11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
on account of Government ownership, private shareholding
linkages, administrative connection, group relationship, Board-level
overlap, common shareholders or affiliate status. This court cannot
create a new eligibility condition or disqualification which the tender
document itself does not prescribe.
15. Yet another ground of attack raised by the petitioner is the
commonality in digital infrastructure, common IP address, common
portal access, payment gateway, official network or tender-
submission environment. In an electronic tender process, digital
records may certainly be relevant. However, a technical
circumstance such as common IP address or common portal /
payment infrastructure cannot, by itself, establish collusive bidding.
The common IP address or digital commonality may, at the best, be
a circumstance for verification by the tendering authority in an
appropriate case, but it cannot substitute material showing actual
common bid control, bid coordination, price-sharing, exchange of
confidential information or manipulation of the tender process. In
the absence of foundational facts beyond broad suspicion, such a
______________
Page 12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
request would amount to converting PIL jurisdiction into a process
of discovery before pleadings are substantiated.
16. A constitutional court, under the garb of public interest
litigation, cannot direct a roving and fishing enquiry merely because
two bidders alleged to have used the same IP address, portal,
payment system or network environment. Something more must be
pleaded and shown, such as common bid drafting, common login
control, shared price information, coordinated submission, identical
commercial conduct, suppression of a mandatory disclosure or other
material indicating an arrangement to restrict competition. No such
material has been placed before us.
17. To order an enquiry on such asseverations contained in
this petition would effectively authorise speculative discovery
against bidders and the tendering authority. Such a course would
unsettle public procurement, expose tender processes to collateral
challenges and permit PIL proceedings to be used to obtain internal
commercial and electronic records without foundational proof.
______________
Page 13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
18. The challenge to the procedure involving Independent
External Monitors (“IEMs”), established under the framework
prescribed by Central Vigilance Commission Circular No.05/01/22,
dated 25.01.2022, is equally without merit. The IEM mechanism
has been mandated by the Central Vigilance Commission to
promote transparency and to prevent and curb corrupt practices in
public procurement and government contracts. The principal
function of IEMs is to oversee the implementation of Integrity Pacts,
ensure that the contracting parties adhere to their commitments
against corruption and facilitate the resolution of grievances without
unnecessary and costly litigation. Having alleged collusion and
cartelization among the concerned entities, the petitioner cannot
simultaneously question the very procedure designed to prevent,
detect and address such misconduct. The IEM procedure forms part
of the agreed contractual and integrity framework between the
parties and must, therefore, be followed in accordance with the
applicable terms of the Integrity Pact and the mandate of the
Central Vigilance Commission.
______________
Page 14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
19. To sum up, the petitioner has not shown any direct public
injury, statutory violation, mala fide action, loss to public exchequer,
violation of an essential tender condition or concrete material
indicating actual cartelisation.
20. As a sequel, this writ petition is dismissed with costs
quantified at Rs.25,000/- payable by the petitioner to the Tamil
Nadu Advocates’ Clerks Welfare Fund within two weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the matter may
be listed before the court after two weeks. Consequently, interim
applications stand closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
17.07.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi
To:
1. The Secretary, Union of India
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs,
Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi-110 011.
2. The Secretary, Union of India
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
______________
Page 15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
3. The Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission
Satarkta Bhawan, GPO Complex,
Block-A, INA, New Delhi-110 023.
4. The Secretary, Competition Commission
of India, 9th Floor,
Office Block-1, Kidwai Nagar (East),
New Delhi – 110023.
5. The Competent Officer,
Comptroller and Auditor General of India,
9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi – 110124.
6. The Chairman and Managing Director,
NBCC (India) Limited,
NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi – 110003.
Also having its Regional Office.
Bakthavatchalapuram, Avadi, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu-600 054.
7. The Managing Director,
HSCC (India) Limited,
E-6(A), Sector-1, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh – 201301.
8. The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust,
Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600 001.
9. The Chief Medical Officer,
Chennai Port Trust Hospital,
Chennai Port Trust Hospital,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
______________
Page 16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
W.P.No.28368 of 2026
17.07.2026
______________
Page 17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
