IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.Nos.46291 & 46292 of 2025 Sri Shanmuga Builders, No.1/401, Main Road, Mahendramangalam, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District-636 805 rep. By its Proprietor P.Kumar. ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintending Engineer, Highways Department, Salem Circle, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem-636 302.

2.The Divisional Engineer, Highways (C & M), Krishnagiri Division, Krishnagiri District.

3.Siva Builders, C/o.Divisional Engineer, Highways (C & M), Krishnagiri Division, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Tender Notice No.49/2025-2026/HDO dated 29.09.2025 and consequently Tender Summary Reports dated 27.10.2025 on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents to reconsider the bids of the petitioner in par with the other contractors without insisting upon the production of the Site Inspection Certificate as well as Plant and Machinery Certificates.

For petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondent : Ms.S.Anitha, Nos.1 & 2 Special Government Pleader

ORDER

Challenging the Tender Notice No.49/2025-2026/HDO dated

29.09.2025 and the consequent Tender Summary Reports dated 27.10.2025 of the first respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the official respondents to reconsider the bids of the petitioner in par with the other contractors without insisting upon the production of the Site Inspection Certificate as well as Plant and Machinery Certificates.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents. With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken for hearing at the admission stage itself. Since no adverse order has been passed against the third respondent, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s tender application has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed to enclose the work site inspection certificate and working condition of the plant and machinery certificate, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had been waiting till before the last date for submission of tender application. He further submitted that the second respondent had not chosen either to conduct inspection or to issue the work site inspection certificate as well as the working condition of the plant and machinery certificate to the petitioner despite their repeated requests which clearly shows the dereliction of the statutory duty on the part of the second respondent which cannot be put against the petitioner and therefore, the impugned rejection order is wholly arbitrary and illegal and the same is liable to be interfered with. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents while defending the impugned order submitted that it is the duty of the petitioner to facilitate the inspection so as to enable the authorities to identify the nature and condition of machinery and issue the work site inspection certificates. She further submitted that, even prior to the last date for submission of the application, the petitioner had not approached either the authorities or this Court. She continued that in the absence of any co-operation on the part of the petitioner with the process of inspection, the claim of the petitioner with regard to non-issuance of requisite certificates is wholly unsustainable.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the respective learned counsels and also perused the materials available on record.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner had submitted his tender application without enclosing the work site inspection certificate and the certificate rela