Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.JAYACHANDRAN, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Megala Construction – Appellant
Versus
Superintending Engineer (Highways) Thiruchirappalli – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility criteria for contractor bids. (Para 2) |
| 2. discussion on proof of ownership. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. confirmation and rationale for rejection. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 4. court's direction on future qualifications. (Para 9) |
| 5. disposal of writ appeals. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
1. A batch of writ appeals in two sets, one filed by Megala Construction and another by Velavan Builders Private Limited, are directed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge on 18.12.2025.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ appeals are as below:
the appellants are Class-I Contractors under the Highways Department. They have applied for work contract in respect of Pudukottai (H) C&M Division CRIDP 2025-2026. Pursuant to the tender notification issued by the first respondent dated 02.09.2025, their applications were considered and rejected on the first stage itself, since the respondents were not satisfied regarding the mandatory possession/ownership of critical plants and machinery to get eligible for pre-qualification. The rejection order clearly specified the plants and machinery for which the appellants were not able to produce acceptable proof of owne
Delivery challans can serve as valid proof of ownership for machinery in interstate transactions, substituting tax invoices under the Gujarath Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Failure to provide valid proof of ownership for mandatory equipment results in the rejection of tender applications, reaffirming the importance of compliance with tender conditions.
Tender rejection upheld as petitioner failed to provide sufficient proof of machinery ownership as mandated, highlighting strict adherence to bid requirements.
Tenderers must provide documented proof of ownership of required machinery, failing which bids may be lawfully rejected.
Judicial intervention in tender processes is limited to preventing arbitrariness; courts prioritize public interest over individual grievances when evaluating tender acceptance decisions.
The court upheld the interpretation of tender conditions regarding equipment ownership, dismissing the appeal as unmeritorious.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
