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.

ORDER :

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent herein on 30.09.2025 wherein the request of the petitioner for issuance of the working condition of plants and machineries certificate was rejected and consequently, the bid submitted by the writ petitioner was rejected.

2. The first respondent herein had issued tender notice No. 32/2025-26/SDO, dated 15.09.2025 inviting percentage bids under two cover system through online for TPY-62 to TRY-69. As per the tender conditions, the petitioner has to obtain the certificate relating to working condition of plants and machineries by making an application before the second respondent on or before 26.09.2025 and the last date for issuance of such certificate was fixed as 03.10.2025.

3. The petitioner herein had made an application on 24.09.2025 through e-mail seeking certificate. This request was rejected under the impugned order dated 30.09.2025.

Challenging the above said order, the present writ petitions have been filed.

The submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side are as follows:-

1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that as per annexure No.1 of both the tender notifications, a tenderer is expected to mandatorily have possession of 7 items of plants and equipments for this work. As per the annexure No.1, proof of ownership must be enclosed. According to the petitioner, for non-production of the documents with regard to the three machineries, certificate has been rejected. As far as the Central Hot Mix plant is concerned, he has produced a delivery challan. As far as static roller is concerned, he has produced a receipt from Diesel Spares Corporation dated 15.06.2001 which is a receipt issued for purchase of second hand road roller. According to him, the road roller does not require registration under the Motor Vehicles Act and the production of registration certificate would not arise. He further submits that other Contractors have also produced only such kind of receipts issued by the Sellers. The petitioner's firm has been discriminated and therefore, the request for issuance of certificate has been rejected only to favour another private individuals.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that as far as concrete mixture machine is concerned, he had produced a receipt issued by the Poorna Industries. He has also produced tax invoice from Ajax Fiori, dated 23.01.2018 with regard to the purchase of Agro Self Loading Concrete Mixture. According to him, he has produced R.C. book for the above said equipment. In such circumstances, the authorities have erroneously passed impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner for issuance of the certificate. This has resulted in rejection of the bid submitted by the petitioner for TRY-64 and TPY-79. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of rejection dated 03.10.2025.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that as per clause 2.5 of the tender document, the applicant should own or should have assured ownership to key items of equipment as per annexure No.1 in full working order and must demonstrate that based on known commitment, they will be available for use in the proposed contract. He also relied upon clause 5.9 to contend that the bidder shall furnish the registration number, engine number and make number of the tools and plants to be employed e