The Thaimaman Thanga Mothiram Thittam is a scheme introduced by the TVK Government to distribute 1 gram gold rings of 22 carat purity to newborn children in government hospitals.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the petitioner was not one of the tenderers and had no personal stake in the award. Highlighting the limited power of the court to interfere in tender processes, the court said that when the other tenderers who had participated in the process did not have any grievance, the court could not set aside the tender.

“Moreover, the petitioner is not a tenderer and has no personal stake in the award. He has approached the Court as a stranger to the tender, in public interest. None of the ten tenderers who lost out to the second respondent has chosen to question the award. The Court ought to be slow to unsettle a commercial tender at the instance of a person with no direct interest in its outcome, more so when those who have a direct interest have not felt aggrieved enough to come forward,” the court said.

It may be noted that the State Government's Health and Family Welfare Department had entrusted the Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation Limited to procure gold rings for the scheme. The Corporation then floated a tender inviting rate contract bids for 1 year for 4,41,667 rings. Two corrigenda were issued by the Corporation. In the first corrigendum, the separate heads of expenses were removed and a single composite figure described as charges per ring was introduced. By way of the second corrigendum, the qualification criteria were revised, and the requirement of sample approval, manufacturer's undertaking letter, etc were removed.

The petitioner had challenged the award of tender to Joyalukkas India, who had quoted a price of Rs 1 paisa per ring. The petitioner argued that he was not against the scheme but was only against the manner in which is was implemented and the mode of procurement.

It was submitted that as per Clause 5.8(vi) of the tender, the bidder was required to quote for the full scope of work and the amount of 1 paisa quoted by Joyalukkas omitted every cost head. He added that as per Section 29A of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, the tender accepting authority was empowered to reject a bid which was abnormally too low in relation to the subject of work, but this power was not exercised in the present case.

The petitioner also questioned the authority of the Corporation, which was only constituted to deal in medicines, drugs, and hospital equipment and had no power to procure bullion, gold articles or jewellery.

The Corporation, on the other hand, questioned the maintainability of the plea. It was argued that the petitioner had not challenged the scheme, nor any condition of the tender, nor the price schedule, qualification criteria, and the tender clause under which the award was made. It was argued that since the mechanism of the tender was not challenged, the plea had no legs to stand on.

The Corporation also pointed out contradictions in the stand taken by the petitioner. It was argued that though on the one hand the petitioner argued that the corporation did not have authority to hold the tender, he was also asking the court to direct the Corporation to conduct the tender afresh.

The court agreed with the Corporation and noted that the petitioner had neither challenged the scheme, nor the tender process and its conditions. The court also noted that though the petitioner claimed that the corporation did not have any vires to procure gold, he was also seeking directions to conduct the tender afresh, which was an inconsistency. The court also noted that the petitioner had not participated in the tender process.

Thus, the court concluded that the award of contract and the letter of acceptance did not suffer rom any kind of arbitrariness, mala fides or irrationality that would justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The plea was thus dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. T. Mohan, Senior Counsel for Mr. P. Suresh Babu

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Vijay Narayan Advocate General asst by Mr. J. Lenin Special Govt Pleader

Case Title: Raj G v The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 439

Case No: WP No 36549 of 202