ORDER : P.T.ASHA, J. A person who has not participated in the auction has filed the above writ petitions seeking to quash the orders of the 2 nd respondent dated 24.09.2025, 23.09.2025, 29.10.2025 and 06.09.2025 respectively. 2. The sum and substance of the petitioner’s case is that the 2 nd respondent had called a tender for the installation of CCTV cameras at specified places in the city. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the entire tender process is flawed, as it has ignored the following aspects: W.P.No.41222 of 2025 a) Mandatory compliance and prior approval required under CRZ norms have been ignored. b)Surveillance coverage limited to focus areas alone will not serve the purpose of comprehensive beach surveillance covering the Near Shore, Deep Sea, Beach Sand Area, Service Road and Entry/Exit points. c) The erection of a tower with a height of 20 mtrs for wireless connectivity in the beach sector would cause a grave risk and compromise public safety and security, as it is an area of mass public movement. d) Beach surveillance is required to integrate Anti Drowning Units and Drone integration. However, this aspect has not been properly factored in the tender document. e)Provision for live feed recording has been ignored, except for the installation of CCTV surveillance solutions in the Chief Minister’s residence sector. f) The camera configurations are flawed and the night vision surveillance would be a failure. g) The tender does not contemplate conducting a field trial to verify the capacity of the bidders. W.P. No. 41219 of 2025 a). The Request for Proposal (RFP) is neither practically nor technically feasible for implementation on various grounds. b). The proposed deployment pattern to be adopted and going by the fixed process for fiber connectivity does not ensure secured and uninterrupted live connectivity and dedicated on premise storage 24x7, nor any redundancy pattern of intermediate storage at locations or Hubs. c). The fundamental principles are totally absent and ignored in this tender RC No. SII(2)40177/107/2025. d). Proceeding with this tender process will lead to failures in the implementation of an appropriate solution. e) The specifications set forth in the RFP is a total compromise and failure to ensure “public safety and security. f) The tender process is a total violation of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act. g) The impugned RFP gives a clear indication that the tender is inflated. e) The specifications set forth in the RFP is a total compromise and failure to ensure “public safety and security. f) The tender process is a total violation of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act. g) The impugned RFP gives a clear indication that the tender is inflated. h) The tender is liquidated in key implementation and solutions aspects and is overall inflated and skewed. W.P. No. 41236 of 2025 a). The tender is not practically and technically feasible for implementation on various grounds. b). The deployment pattern to be adopted and going by the fixed BOM for fiber connectivity does not ensure secured and uninterrupted live connectivity and storage 24x7. c). In projects involving new technology of this kind, weightage should be given to the best solution offered by the tenderer and not to prior or past project qualification criteria at generic levels. d). The fundamental principles are totally absent and ignored in this tender in RC No.E1/469823/2020; where-as in the RFP for Installation of CCTV Surveillance Solution in CM Residence Sector in Rc.No.MPF-1/87484/2022, these fundamental aspects have been factored and documented in the tender. e). The specifications set forth in the RFP is a total compromise and failure to ensure “Public Safety and Security” through appropriate and complaint CCTV Implementation with AI solutions. f) Sufficient time has not been granted for BOQ total formula correction which is illegal and arbitrary. g). The Impugned tender in RC.No.E1/469823/2020 is arbitrary, skewed and contrary to law. W.P.No.50394 of 2025 a) The RFP is not practically and technically feasible for implementation on various grounds. b). The entire tender is flawed and the tendering authority has proceeded with formulating this tender and publishing it without: (i). Precise inputs and clarity on scope and requirements (ii). Verifying the location list published, which does have prior existing cctv installations in the location vicinity, (iii). Key aspects on connectivity and integration methods to be covered for this tender (iv). Prevailing feasibility on the ground and surveillance coverage aspects and (v). Clear knowledge of the actual Artificial Intelligence-based integration methods and live monitoring and tracking techniques to be factored into this tender. C). The subject RFP in RC.No.MPF- 1/19522/2023 has several flaws and discrepancies, notably: (i) Scope of Work; Clause 6.1 (System Architecture and Data Flow) and Clause 6.3 (Bill of Material). Clear knowledge of the actual Artificial Intelligence-based integration methods and live monitoring and tracking techniques to be factored into this tender. C). The subject RFP in RC.No.MPF- 1/19522/2023 has several flaws and discrepancies, notably: (i) Scope of Work; Clause 6.1 (System Architecture and Data Flow) and Clause 6.3 (Bill of Material). (ii) Clause 8 — Clause 8.1 relating to camera specifications, fixed monopoly specifications, and certification aspects; (iii) Clause 8 — Clauses 8.11, 8.12, and 8.13 relating to server, workstation, and software licence requirements; (iv) Clause 3.4.4 — Pre-qualification and eligibility criteria; (v) Clause 4 — Technical evaluation framework; d) The tender panel and the tendering authority had totally liquidated the technical specifications, connectivity pattern and integration methods and have failed to adopt process parity and standard integration and implementation methods for Integrated CCTV – city surveillance. e). Tenderer proposing to build dedicated connectivity infrastructure assets for seamless integration of live feeds and factor Live AI tracking at ICCC are denied active participation by this liquidated and erroneous corrigendum dated 11.12.2025, f) Mandatory technical aspects and specifications of the subject tender are liquidated, more of less downgraded leading to further ambiguities. g) The impugned RFP in RC.No.MPF-1/19522/2023 is untenable, inflated and Void. 3. The petitioner would submit that pointing out the above anomalies and errors, several representations have been sent through e-mail dated 29.09.2025 and by speed post on 27.09.2025 seeking clarifications to ensure competition and fair play. The petitioner’s contention is that their representations have not been clarified and that the anomalies pointed out by them have not been rectified. Therefore, they have come forward with the above writ petitions seeking the reliefs stated supra. 4. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. The tender has been floated after the respondents have taken into consideration their requirements. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that a Committee has been formed for this purpose and that, after due deliberations, the Committee has arrived at the requirements. The petitioner, who is not even a bidder, cannot dictate to the procuring entity as to what products should be purchased, as it is for the procuring entity to ultimately decide its requirements. The petitioner, who is not even a bidder, cannot dictate to the procuring entity as to what products should be purchased, as it is for the procuring entity to ultimately decide its requirements. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot step into the shoes of the purchasing entity and dictate the nature of the material or the product to be procured. In this regard, useful reference can be made to the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 2025 SCC Online AP 1788 [Vikram Book Links Private Limited, Rep by its Authorised Representative and Another Vs State of A.P, Rep by its Principal Secretary and Others]. “ The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedure laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness.” It was held that the terms and conditions in the tender are prescribed by the Government bearing in mind the nature of contract and in such matters the authority calling for the tender is the best judge to prescribe the terms and conditions of the tender. It is not for the courts to say whether the conditions prescribed in the tender under consideration were better than the ones prescribed in the earlier tender invitations.” 6. It is not for the courts to say whether the conditions prescribed in the tender under consideration were better than the ones prescribed in the earlier tender invitations.” 6. If the petitioner possesses any advantages which, according to them, have been ignored in the RFB, it is always well open to the petitioner to participate in the bid. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that several rounds of clarifications with the bidders have taken place and that the petitioner, after attending the first meeting, has failed to participate in the subsequent meetings. This Court cannot bring the entire tender process to a halt, aimed at ensuring public safety through the installation of CCTV cameras at vantage points, merely on the submission that the respondents could have opted for higher-end product. A similar view has been taken in 2025 SCC OnLine AP 1788 (Vikram Book Links Private Limited v. State of A.P.) wherein it has been held as follows: “12. It has clearly been held in these decisions that the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract. That the Government must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The courts would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. The courts can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.” 7. In the light of the above discussion, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.