Madras HC Rejects Tree-Cutting Bidder’s Appeal For More Time: Lake Water Was Present When Cutting Order Was Issued

The appellant was the successful bidder in a 2017 tender to remove Kattukaruvel trees from Pappankulam Kanmai.

After receiving a cutting order dated 6 March 2017, he remitted the bid amount but did not complete the work within the stipulated period, citing water in the lake; he sought an extension.

He had previously approached the Court regarding his request, and later asserted that his representations remained undecided and that other bidders had received extensions.

In 2026, the fifth respondent issued a fresh tender notification that included the same lake.

The Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, and he appealed.

The judgment cites no statute, regulation, or precedent. It applies the principle that a tender participant who proceeds with knowledge of the relevant conditions cannot later rely on those known conditions to excuse non-performance; any necessary extension should be sought from the authorities at the relevant time.

The Court also held that the appellant could participate in the fresh tender subject to its applicable terms and conditions.

The Court found that water was present in the lake when the appellant participated in the tender and when the cutting order was issued. He therefore knew of that condition and should have raised it with the authorities and sought an extension at the relevant time.

The Court rejected his later reliance on the water as justification for failing to complete the work and found no error or infirmity in the Single Judge’s order.

It allowed the fresh tender to proceed, while preserving the appellant’s ability to participate in it on its stated terms.

The appellant remained at liberty to participate in the fresh tender, subject to its terms and conditions.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.