ORDER : 1. These seven writ petitions have been filed by a Class-1A contractor challenging the rejection of technical bid dated 11.10.2025 with regard to seven packages. (A) Factual Matrix: 2. The first respondent in the writ petitions had invited E-bid for construction of 132 houses for Sri Lankan Refugees at Azhiyanilai Refugees Camp in Aranthangi Panchayat Union for 2025-2026 under two cover system for seven packages. The notification was issued on 19.09.2025. The last date for online submission of tender was fixed on 03.10.2025 at 3.00 p.m. The date and time for opening of the online tender was fixed at 5.00 p.m. on 03.10.2025. 3. The petitioner company had submitted their tender for all the seven packages. The tender bids were opened on 03.10.2025. After evaluation, the technical bids of the writ petitioner for all the seven packages were rejected under seven separate impugned orders on 11.10.2025. These orders are under challenge in the present writ petitions. 4. The tender summary report dated 11.10.2025 is attacked as the impugned order. A perusal of the said order reveals that apart from the petitioner, two others have also submitted their tender for all the seven packages. The technical bid of the other two bidders has been accepted. The price bid of the fifth respondent has been accepted on 11.10.2025. 5. A perusal of the orders impugned in the writ petition reveals that the technical bid submitted by the writ petitioner has been rejected. No reasons have been assigned in the tender summary report which is impugned in all the seven writ petitions. (B) Submissions of the counsels appearing on either side are as follows: 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon Clause 20.5 and 20.6 of the tender document and submitted that as soon as the technical bid (Part-I) is opened, it shall be made public and the tender inviting authority should wait for a period of five working days during which any bidder may submit complaint. The said complaint has to be resolved before opening of the price bid (Part-II). However, in the present case, the evaluation of technical bid made only on 11.10.2025 and on the same day, the price bid was opened without waiting for the complaint relating to rejection. 7. The said complaint has to be resolved before opening of the price bid (Part-II). However, in the present case, the evaluation of technical bid made only on 11.10.2025 and on the same day, the price bid was opened without waiting for the complaint relating to rejection. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon Clause 23.2 of the tender document and submitted that a tender document can be rejected only if there is a material deviation or reservation which would affect the scope, quality or performance of the works or which limits in any substantial way, inconsistent with the bidding documents, the employer's rights or the bidder's obligations under the contract or which rectification would affect unfairly the competitive position of other bidders who have presented substantially responsive bids. Therefore, the rejection of the technical bid of the writ petitioner without assigning any reason whatsoever is clearly in violation of Clause 23.2. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the officials respondents submitted that Annexure-F affidavit though uploaded, the original affidavit was not presented before the authority. He had further submitted that the technical bid was opened on 03.10.2025 and immediately an intimation was sent to all the tenderers who have submitted their bids. The documents submitted by each one of the tenderers were available in online. Only for evaluating the same, the authorities have taken a week's time and the evaluation report was published on 11.10.2025. Therefore, after opening of the technical bid, the petitioner had five days time to raise his complaint. However, the petitioner has not raised any complaint whatsoever. Therefore, the price bid was opened on 11.10.2025. According to him, the evaluation can be completed within a period of five working days from the date of bid opening as per Clause 20.5. Therefore, only after waiting for a period of five days, the price bid was opened. 9. The learned Additional Advocate General had further submitted that as per Clause 9.3, the original affidavit in Annexure-F has to be submitted not later than two working days after opening of Part-I of the bid, either by registered post or by hand, failing which the bids will be declared as non-responsive. 9. The learned Additional Advocate General had further submitted that as per Clause 9.3, the original affidavit in Annexure-F has to be submitted not later than two working days after opening of Part-I of the bid, either by registered post or by hand, failing which the bids will be declared as non-responsive. In the present case, though it is stated in the online status that the technical bid of the writ petitioner is rejected, in actuality, the technical bid of the writ petitioner has been declared as non-responsive. 10. The learned Additional Advocate General had also relied upon Clause 23.3 to impress upon the Court that when the bid is not substantially responsive, it has to be rejected by the employer and they may not subsequently be made responsive by correction or withdrawal of non-conforming deviation or reservation. 11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent in WP(MD).Nos.31178 to 31179 of 2025 relying upon Section 10(7) of Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 submitted that the Tender Accepting Authority has to intimate the information regarding the name and address of the tenderer whose tender has been accepted along with the reasons for rejection of other tenders to the appropriate Tender Bulletin Officers. According to him, only if an order is passed under Section 10(7) of Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 , it become an appealable order under Section 11 of the Act. He further submitted that mere online rejection order without assigning the reasons for rejection of technical bid cannot be put to challenge before the Court. He relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 32312 of 2025 ( M/s. MKMS Builders Rep. by its Managing Partner, A. Shajahan Sait Vs. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Chennai and others ) dated 26.11.2025 wherein this Court has held that the writ petition which is filed challenging the online rejection order without assigning any reasons, is premature and hence, the same cannot be entertained. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent in WP(MD).Nos.29467 and 29540 of 2025 submitted that the technical bid of the writ petitioner has been declared to be non-responsive and not rejected. The rejection order can be passed only after evaluation. In view of non submission of mandatory documents, without even evaluating the tender, the same has been declared as non-responsive. The rejection order can be passed only after evaluation. In view of non submission of mandatory documents, without even evaluating the tender, the same has been declared as non-responsive. According to him, the non-filing of a particular document cannot be rectified and therefore, the petitioner's bid document was declared as non-responsive. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submitted that as per Clause 23.2 of the tender document, only if the deviation is substantial in nature, that would affect the quality or performance, the tender document can be declared as non-responsive. Otherwise, the petitioners should have been called upon by the Tender Inviting Authority to produce the documents. He had further submitted that though Annexure-F was uploaded and submitted in original, the same has not been considered. He had further submitted that the Tender Accepting Authority has not waited for five days cooling period before opening of the price bid. He relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others , 2025 INSC 1276 ; Mohindhr Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , (1978) 1 SCC 405 and M/s. Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of of Odisha and others , 2025 INSC 1295 in support of his contentions. 14. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records. (C) Discussion: 15. As per Clause 9.1 of the tender document, nine documents have to be scanned and uploaded along with technical bid. One of the documents is an affidavit regarding correctness of certificates. A model format of the said certificate is annexed as Annexure -F to the tender document. Admittedly, the said Annexure-F has been uploaded along with tender document by the writ petitioner. 16. As per Clause 9.3, some of the original documents have to be submitted on a date not later than two working days after the opening of technical bid either by registered post or by hand, failing which the bids will be declared as non-responsive. One of the documents is the original affidavit regarding correctness of information furnished with bid document which nothing but Annexure-F. 17. One of the documents is the original affidavit regarding correctness of information furnished with bid document which nothing but Annexure-F. 17. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, though Annexure-F was uploaded, the original document was not submitted within two days from the opening of the technical bid namely on or before 05.10.2025. It was not even submitted before completion of evaluation of the technical bid namely on 11.10.2025. This ground has been raised by the Tender Accepting Authority in Paragraph No.9(ii) of the Vacate Stay Petition which is extracted as follows: “9(ii) I submit that as per the tender notice, the date and time for online opening of tender was 03.10.2025 at 17.00 hours onwards. On the next day ie. on 04.10.2025, the petitioner, who had applied for all the seven packages, had submitted a cover containing certain documents and since the petitioner failed to submit the original affidavit regarding correctness of information furnished with bid document, as prescribed in Annexure 'F' his technical bid was not taken up and rejected summarily.” 18. A perusal of the counter reveals that though the petitioner had submitted a cover containing certain documents on 04.10.2025, it did not contain Annexure-F and therefore, the technical bid was summarily rejected without subjecting it to evaluation. 19. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. Paragraph Nos.12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 are extracted as follows: “12.1. The petitioner asserts that the physical cover submitted on 04.10.2025 did contain all requisite documents. 12.2. In an e-procurement system, the digital bid uploaded on the portal is the primary and legally binding record. The petitioner undisputedly uploaded the scanned copy of the signed and notarized affidavit (Annexure -F) as part of the Technical Bid (Page 31). 12.3. Rejecting a bid for an alleged failure to submit a physical duplicate, when the digital original is valid and present on the screen, is a hyper-technicality.” 20. A careful scanning of the rejoinder affidavit reveals that the petitioner in Paragraph No.12.1 has asserted that the physical cover contained all the requisite documents. It should be noted that the petitioner has not specifically contended that he had enclosed Annexure-F. In Paragraph No. 12.2, it is averred that the petitioner has undisputedly uploaded the scanned copy. In Paragraph No.12.3, the petitioner contends that when the digital original is valid, failure to produce the duplicate is a hyper-technicality. 21. It should be noted that the petitioner has not specifically contended that he had enclosed Annexure-F. In Paragraph No. 12.2, it is averred that the petitioner has undisputedly uploaded the scanned copy. In Paragraph No.12.3, the petitioner contends that when the digital original is valid, failure to produce the duplicate is a hyper-technicality. 21. From the evasive rejoinder, it is clear that the petitioner has not submitted a physical copy of Annexure -F within two days from the date of opening of the technical bid as contemplated under Clause 9.3 of the tender document. As per the said Clause, if any one of the original documents as mentioned in Clause 9.3 is not submitted in physical format, the bid has to be declared as non-responsive. The official respondents have invoked Clause 23.2 and they have rejected the technical bid. 22. It is the case of the petitioner that after the result of evaluation of the technical bid is published, they have to wait for a period of five working days before opening the price bid. This contention can be raised only where the technical bid is rejected after evaluation. In the present case, the technical bid was not even subjected to evaluation in view of non-filing of physical document as contemplated under Clause 9.3. Therefore, the authorities have rightly declared that the technical bid of the petitioner as non-responsive. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek to invoke Clause 20.6 and expect the authorities to wait for five more days before opening of the price bid from the date of evaluation of the technical bid. Therefore, such a contention is liable to be rejected. 23. The petitioner's technical bid has been declared to be non-responsive in view of the violation of Clause 9.3 of the tender document and it has not been subjected to evaluation. This Court has called for the original tender documents submitted by the writ petitioner and found that the physical copy of Annexure -F has not been submitted. A perusal of the tender document further reveals that the petitioner has submitted only Annexure-G in physical format and not enclosed Annexure-F. 24. This Court has called for the original tender documents submitted by the writ petitioner and found that the physical copy of Annexure -F has not been submitted. A perusal of the tender document further reveals that the petitioner has submitted only Annexure-G in physical format and not enclosed Annexure-F. 24. In view of the above said facts, it is clear that the Tender Accepting Authority has rightly declared the bids submitted by the writ petitioner for all the seven packages as non-responsive, in view of non-filing of the physical copy of Annexure-F which is a mandatory document as contemplated under Clause 9.3 of the tender document. (D) Conclusion: 25. In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in these writ petitions. All the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.