ORDER : R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the work order issued in favour of the seventh respondent pursuant to a tender notification dated 07.11.2025. (A).Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner are as follows: 2. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, a tender was floated by the fourth respondent for construction of Chief Minister Mini Stadium at Thirumayam Assembly Constituency at Segeerai in Sengeerai Panchayat, Arimalam Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District. The petitioner as well as the seventh respondent have submitted their tender bids along with two other contractors. The technical bids were opened on 13.11.2025. The price bid though had to be opened on 18.11.2025, it was opened only on 24.11.2025. The work order has been issued on 25.11.2025, which is under challenge. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had further submitted that after the technical bid was opened, questioning the credentials of the seventh respondent herein, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner company on 14.11.2025 through registered post. The same was received only on 17.11.2015 by the Tender Accepting Authority. Thereafter, without considering the objection or passing any orders, the present impugned work order has been issued in favour of the seventh respondent. 4. According to the learned senior counsel, the chartered accountant certificate submitted by the seventh respondent which is dated 19.05.2024 reflects zero turnover for the previous year 2024-2025. Therefore, it clearly indicates that no work was executed in one of the preceding five years and thereby disqualifying the bidder from participating as per the tender conditions. 5. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that the tender condition requires mandatory proof of ownership or lease of the specified construction equipment. However, the documents filed on the side of the seventh respondent would clearly reveal that they have already sold away the vehicle and they have produced a fake registration certificate as if it continues to remain in their name. In view of the said forged document, the technical bid of the seventh respondent ought to have been rejected. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had further submitted that the seventh respondent firm was incorporated only in the year 2022, but they have submitted the documents dated 09.12.2020 in support of its tender application. In view of the said forged document, the technical bid of the seventh respondent ought to have been rejected. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had further submitted that the seventh respondent firm was incorporated only in the year 2022, but they have submitted the documents dated 09.12.2020 in support of its tender application. Therefore, the documents are misleading and they clearly amounts to fabrication of documents and constitutes a serious violation of the tender condition which warrants criminal action. 7. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that the seventh respondent has produced fabricated invoices solely for the purpose of tender qualification. The submission of fabricated documents amount to criminal offence and therefore, the technical bid of the seventh respondent ought to have been rejected. He had further submitted that GST registration of the seventh respondent was suspended on 27.11.2025 and therefore, the firm was not legally eligible to issue valid GST invoices or undertake taxable supplies. The possession of an active GST registration is a mandatory statutory requirement for tender eligibility and precondition for submission of the bids. Concealment of the suspension amounts to material misrepresentation. 8. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that the tender documents were submitted in the name of 'Sree Amman Logistics' whereas the five years financial statements enclosed along with the tender document would reveal that they stand in the name of an individual namely “S.V.Perumal Contractor”. 9. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that after the complaint was lodged by the petitioner, certain documents have been collected from the seventh respondent in order to bring the seventh respondent within the zone of consideration. This is clearly in violation of the tender document. Only based upon the additional documents presented by the seventh respondent, after opening of the technical bid, the technical bid of the seventh respondent has been accepted. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that the complaint of the petitioner dated 14.11.2025 was sent only through registered post and it was not handed over in person. 10. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents submitted that the technical bid was opened on 13.11.2025 and on the same day, the credentials were uploaded. The petitioner has submitted his objection by hand on 14.11.2025. Therefore, the explanation was called for from the seventh respondent on the same day. 10. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents submitted that the technical bid was opened on 13.11.2025 and on the same day, the credentials were uploaded. The petitioner has submitted his objection by hand on 14.11.2025. Therefore, the explanation was called for from the seventh respondent on the same day. He had submitted his explanation on 17.11.2025. Having been satisfied with the said explanation, the price bid of the seventh respondent was opened on 24.11.2025 and the work order was issued on 25.11.2025. 11. According to the learned Additional Advocate General only four allegations were made in the representation of the writ petitioner dated 14.11.2025. For all the four allegations, a show cause notice was issued to the seventh respondent on the same day and a reply was received. Therefore, no new allegations can be raised in the present writ petition challenging the acceptance of the technical bid of the seventh respondent. Whatever, objections that were raised by the writ petitioner was put on notice to the seventh respondent and after being satisfied with the reply, his technical bid was accepted and the price bid was opened. 12. The learned Additional Advocate General had further submitted that as far as the vehicle owned by the seventh respondent firm is concerned, they have been sold just prior to the tender notification and they have been leased out in favour of the seventh respondent company. Therefore, the same vehicle which is mentioned in the tender document alone are going to be put to use in the construction of the Mini Stadium. 13. The learned Additional Advocate General had relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 ( Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and others ) and (2020) 16 SCC 489 ( Silppi Constructions and Contractors Vs. Union of India and another ) in support of his contention. 14. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records. (B).Discussion: 15. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the work order issued in favour of the seventh respondent primarily on the ground that the technical bid of the seventh respondent ought not to have been accepted in view of various irregularities and falsification of documents. 16. (B).Discussion: 15. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the work order issued in favour of the seventh respondent primarily on the ground that the technical bid of the seventh respondent ought not to have been accepted in view of various irregularities and falsification of documents. 16. The tender notification was issued on 07.11.2025 and the technical bid was opened on 13.11.2025 on the same day, the credential of the bidders were uploaded. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, on 14.11.2025 they have sent an objection with regard to the technical bid of the seventh respondent through registered post and the same was received by the authorities only on 17.11.2025. In such circumstances, a show cause notice could not have been issued to the seventh respondent on 14.11.2025. However, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, apart from sending through registered post, the complaint was handed over in person on 14.11.2025. Therefore, on the same date, a show cause notice was issued to the second respondent. 17. In order to verify whether a complaint was handed over to the respondent in person on 14.11.2025, the original records were called for. A perusal of the original records reveal that the petitioner has lodged a complaint in person on 14.11.2025 and there is a seal of the authorities. Therefore, the authorities have issued a show cause notice to the seventh respondent on the same day. Referring to the complaint dated 14.11.2025, the seventh respondent has submitted their reply on 17.11.2025. Therefore, it is clear that the complaint received by hand on 14.11.2025 was immediately taken into consideration and a show cause has been issued to the seventh respondent. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the complaint was sent only through registered post cannot be countenanced. 18. A perusal of the complaint lodged by the writ petitioner vide his Letter dated 14.11.2025 reveals that five allegations have been made as against the seventh respondent. For all these five allegations, a reply has been submitted by the seventh respondent on 17.11.2025 enclosing the documents. Having been satisfied with the explanation, the authorities have proceeded to open the price bid on 24.11.2025 in which the seventh respondent was declared as 'L1'. The work order was issued on 25.11.2025 and the present writ petition has been filed on 08.12.2025 and numbered on 27.01.2026. 19. Having been satisfied with the explanation, the authorities have proceeded to open the price bid on 24.11.2025 in which the seventh respondent was declared as 'L1'. The work order was issued on 25.11.2025 and the present writ petition has been filed on 08.12.2025 and numbered on 27.01.2026. 19. As far as the allegations raised by the writ petitioner are concerned, they relate to the evaluation of the tender. The evaluation has to be done only by the competent officials especially with regard to the financial credentials of the successful firm. Even assuming that there are some errors or irregularities in accepting the technical bid of the seventh respondent, unless the petitioner is able to establish that the decision is totally arbitrary, unreasonable, the Court cannot sit on appeal over the appropriate authority. As far as the R.C.Book relating to the vehicle is concerned, for the same vehicle instead of ownership, lease deed has been produced by the seventh respondent which have been accepted by the authorities. Though this would amount to procedural aberration, unless the petitioner is able to establish that public interest would get affected in view of acceptance of these documents, this Court cannot interfere in the same. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 ( Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and others ) in paragraph No. 22 has held as follows: 22........If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes.......” 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489 ( Silppi Constructions and Contractors Vs. Union of India and another ) in paragraph No.20 has held as follows: “20 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489 ( Silppi Constructions and Contractors Vs. Union of India and another ) in paragraph No.20 has held as follows: “20 . The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the state instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court’s interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case ." 24. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact that the seventh respondent has been declared as 'L1' and the petitioner is not able to establish that any public interest is likely to be affected, in order to protect the private interest of the writ petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Further, the delay in approaching this Court after issuance of the work order and the commencement of the work has also to be taken into consideration. (C).Conclusion: 25. In view of the above said facts, there are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.