Tenderers must provide documented proof of ownership of required machinery, failing which bids may be lawfully rejected.

ORDER :

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

These writ petitions have been filed by one M/s.Velan Builders Private Limited challenging the orders passed by the respondent officials dated 30.09.2025, wherein the request of the petitioner for issuance of working condition of plants and machineries certificate has been rejected and the consequential rejection of bid dated 08.10.2025.

2. The first respondent in the writ petition had issued tender notice No. 32/2025-26/SDO, dated 15.09.2025 inviting applications for percentage bid under two cover system through online for TRY-62 to TRY-69. As per the said notification, the tenderer should submit his application for issuance of work site inspection certificate and working condition of plants and machineries certificate on or before 26.09.2025 upto 17.45 hours. The last date for receipt of the said certificate is on or before 03.10.2025. It is further made clear in the notification that any application received after 26.09.2025 beyond 17.45 hours will not be accepted.

3. The petitioner herein made an application to the second respondent on 25.09.2025 seeking issuance of plants and machineries certificate for participation in TRY-62 to TRY-66. Based upon the said application, the order impugned in the writ petition came to be passed by the second respondent on 30.09.2025 rejecting the request of the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner has not enclosed any supporting documents to establish his ownership with regard to static roller which is a mandatory construction equipment required for participating in the tender. Challenging the said order, W.P.(MD)No.27793 of 2025 has been filed. Due to non-submission of the relevant certificate, the tender bid of the petitioner's firm was rejected by an order dated 08.10.2025. Challenging the said consequential order, W.P.(MD)No. 29745 of 2025 has been filed.

The submission of the learned Counsels appearing on either side:

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, one M/s.Murugesan, who is a Contractor had convened a meeting of the Contractors on 27.09.2025 and 28.09.2025 and he had demanded 20% of the value of the work for finalisation of the tender works. According to him, the officials of petitioner's firm who had participated in the said meeting had not agreed for the same. Therefore, the present impugned order has been passed only at the instance of the said Murugesan.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that he had purchased the static roller under sale deed dated 16.05.2025 and the tax invoice has also been raised on the said date. Even though both the documents were submitted before the second respondent, without properly appreciating the said documents, with an ulterior motive, the order impugned in the writ petition has been passed rejecting the request of the petitioner for issuance of the certificate. He further submits that in case if the second respondent has demanded the production of tax invoice, he would have produced the same.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner further submits that another tender notification was issued on 15.10.2025 for which a certificate has been issued by the second respondent. According to him, the officials with an malafide intention and in collusion with the Contractor, namely, Murugesan have passed the present impugned order. He further submits that the said Contractor had demanded more than Rs.1/- Crore during the earlier tender process and when he expressed his unwillingness, he had declared that he will not allow the petitioner's firm to participate in the tender work. Therefore, the present impugned