Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Megala Construction, Represented by Managing Partner, M. Vetriselvan – Appellant
Versus
Superintending Engineer, (Highways), (Construction and Maintenance) Circle, Thiruchirappalli – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging tender rejection based on certificate issues. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. allegations of procedural irregularity by authorities. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. respondents asserting valid proof of ownership needed. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. court evaluates the proof of ownership requirement. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. certificates not satisfied; bids rejected. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 6. writ petitions dismissed. (Para 35 , 36) |
ORDER :
These writ petitions have been filed by one M/s.Megala Construction challenging the rejection of their request for issuance of certificate for participation in the tender process and the consequential orders passed in two sets of tender notification rejecting the bids submitted by the petitioner's firm.
The petitioner's firm is a Class-1 Contractor registered in various Government Departments. According to them, they are having necessary man power and machineries to carry out the execution of works and they are having unblemished record of 35 years of experience in the construction field.
4. As per the tender notice No.31 dated 02.09.2025, bids were called for through online for 13 works namely, TRY 64 to TRY 76. As per the origi
Tender rejection upheld as petitioner failed to provide sufficient proof of machinery ownership as mandated, highlighting strict adherence to bid requirements.
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.
Tenderers must provide documented proof of ownership of required machinery, failing which bids may be lawfully rejected.
Tender - Eligible for participating and opening of price bid in tender proceeding - Respondent-State acted in extending undue favour to respondent No.6, which made the decision making process to be e....
A contractor's bid can be rejected if their registration is invalid at the time of submission, as compliance with legal and procedural requirements in tender evaluation is mandatory.
Judicial review in tender matters limited to arbitrariness or mala fides; courts defer to authority's bid compliance assessment, refusing substitution unless perverse.
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
