Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J
M/s.KCP Infra Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Engineer, TWAD Board, Coimbatore – Respondent
W.P.No.35196 of 2025 | WMP.No.39396 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.P.Rajavelayutham
For the Respondents: Mr.Silambanan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.Arun Adithya & Ms.S.Mekhala
A writ of mandamus cannot be issued without proper authorization and evidence of site visits by the petitioner.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of mandamus - Request for Site Visit Certificate - The petitioner sought certificates to submit bids for a tender, but the certificates were not issued due to lack of authorization for site visits; the court noted the absence of evidence of actual site visits. (Paras 2, 6, 7)
(B) Evidence - Requirement of proof - The absence of photographs or permission to enter the sites was critical; thus, without proof of site visits, the relief sought could not be granted. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner requested site visit certificates to enable participation in an impending tender but failed to provide required evidence of site visits.
Findings of Court:
The court recognized the contractor's experience but could not grant relief without proof of site visits.
Issues: The main questions pertained to the petitioner's authorization and evidence of representatives visiting the sites.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without proper authorization and proof, no mandamus could be granted.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions regarding site visits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for certificates considered. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. proof of site visits required for certification. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. court highlights lack of evidence for site visits. (Para 6 , 7) |
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.P.No.35196 of 2025 &
WMP.No.39396 of 2025 M/s.KCP Infra Limited, Registered Office at No.4, Ground Floor, Alayam Space, Anandha Road, Rep.by its Director, K.Muthukumarasamy ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer, TWAD Board, Coimbatore.
2.The Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, Maintenance Division, Salem.
3.The Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, Maintenance Division, Tiruppur. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to issue respective “Site Visit Certificate” to the petitioner as per the application of the petitioner dated 25.08.2025 in order to submit his bids through online on or before 15.09.2025 up to 15.00 hrs in respect of Tender Notification in IFB No.15/F.Revamping CWSS-SLM & TPR (2nd call)/SDO(T6)/CE/CBE/2025/dated 11.08.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent for the works in sl.No.1 and 2.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.P.Rajavelayutham For Respondents :Mr.Silambanan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.Arun Adithya for Ms.S.Mekhala
ORDER
Heard Mr.M.P.Rajavelayutham for the petitioner and Mr.Silambanan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.Arun Adithya & Ms.S.Mekhala for the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the visit of its employees, one Mr.R.Selvakumar & Mr.Thangaraj to the site whether the tendered works are to be executed, the site visit certificate has not been issued by the respondents. The petitioner made a representation on 25.08.2025 seeking for the site visit certificates to enable it to participate in the tenders. Considering the fact that the tenders are going to close on 15.09.2025, I requested Mr.M.P.Rajavelayutham to serve the papers on the counsel for the TWAD Board.
3. Papers were served. Ms.Mekhala appears for the board.
4. Mr.Silambanan has produced an instruction that has been given by the Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, Salem dated 12.09.2025. The stand of the respondents in the instruction is that the writ petitioner never approached the Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, Maintenance Division, Salem for the purpose of obtaining authorisation to visit the sites. Hence, the Executive Engineer is unable to confirm whether the contractors actually visited the sites and therefore, he is not in a position to issue the certificates. The Executive Engineer has further stated that he is willing to make necessary arrangements to facilitate the site visits and if so done, he is also willing to give the necessary certificates.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and have gone through the records.
6. Going through the records, there seems to be some truth in the stand taken by the Executive Engineer. No photographs with Geotagged sites or permission to enter upon the sites have been produced by the writ petitioner. All that is available are the representations made by the petitioner whereunder the petitioner has asserted that Mr.R.Selvakumar and Mr.Thangaraj has visited the sites. If the petitioner had given any proof of his representatives, having visited the sites, then I would have to issue a positive direction to the Executive Engineer to issue the certificates. That being absent, I am not in a position to grant relief that the petitioner seeks for.
7. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a class-I contractor, who has sufficient experience in the field and has approached the court earlier and since there is time enough to make an application, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:
(i) Mr.Selvakumar and Mr.Thangaraj, the authorised representatives of the writ petitioner will visit the sites at Salem and Tiruppur today by 3.00 pm;
(ii) the second and third respondent will enable the site visits
