BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 28.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

and

W.M.P(MD)No.27149 of 2025

MJD Construction and Engineering Contractors (P)Ltd.

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Janaka Jebangelin,

5/112-B, Main Road,

Kannumamoodu,

Palugal Village,

Kanniyakumari District. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintending Engineer (Highways),

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Construction & Maintenance,

Tirunelveli Circle,

Tirunelveli.

2.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Construction and Maintenance,

Nagercoil.

...Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accept the technical bid of the petitioner's company and to open the financial bid relating to the tender notification in Tender Notice No.

39/2025-2026/HDO, dated 03.11.2025 issued by the first respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Bharathi For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan, Addl. Govt. Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accept the technical bid of the petitioner’s company and to open the financial bid relating to Tender Notice No.39/2025-2026/HDO, dated 03.11.2025, issued by the 1st respondent.

2. The petitioner submits that the petitioner-company is a State-level Class-I contractor for the Highways Department and has successfully executed several major highway works to the satisfaction of both the State and Central Highways Departments. The first respondent issued Tender Notification No. 32/2025-2026/HDO dated 02.09.2025 for the work of widening the Arumanai–Panachamoodu Road (TNV-98) from single lane to intermediate lane and strengthening it from Km 0/0 - Km 4/8. The estimated contract value is Rs. 371.50 lakhs, and the period of completion is four months. In the tender condition, Clause No.7, the petitioner was required to obtain work-site inspection and plant and machinery certificates from the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.09.2025 to the 2nd respondent. On 22.09.2025, the 2nd respondent inspected the petitioner’s work sites, hot-mix plant, and machinery. The 2nd respondent issued certificates dated 27.09.2025 and 30.09.2025 only on 06.10.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the tender. However, no communication was received regarding the opening of the tender. Upon verification of the online portal on 22.10.2025, the petitioner found that the technical bid had been opened and that neither the petitioner nor other contractors were qualified for the work. Subsequently, the 1st respondent recalled the tender for the said work and other works and issued the present Tender Notice No.39/2025-2026/HDO, dated 03.11.2025. However, the 1st respondent again imposed Condition No.7, and the respondents once more insisted that the petitioner obtain the aforementioned certificates for the same work. The petitioner approached the authority on 11.11.2025, 14.11.2025, and 18.11.2025 seeking issuance of the Work-Site Inspection Certificate and the Plant and Machinery Working Condition Certificate. The 2nd respondent assured the petitioner that the certificates would be issued and received the petitioner’s representations, but did not issue them. Hence, the petitioner submitted another representation on 20.11.2025. The petitioner thereafter participated in the tender by uploading the previously issued certificates. Since the respondents did not open the tender and allegedly attempted to do so without notice or the presence of bidders, the petitioner contends that it has been deprived of a fair opportunity to participate in the tender. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the above relief.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have opened the tender; four bids were received and admitted; and the financial bids are going to be opened an