SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 2088

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Velan Builders (P) Ltd – Appellant
Versus
The Superintending Engineer – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P(MD)Nos.235 of 2026 and 29847 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD) Nos.248, 249 of 2026 and 23093 to 23096 of 2025 W.P(MD) No.235 of 2026 Velan Builders (P) Limited, No.3, Periyar Thottam, Ponneripuram Main Road, Ponmalaipatti, Trichirappalli, Represented by its Managing Director, V.Kannaiyan. ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintending Engineer (Highways)

Construction and Maintenance Circle, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)

Construction and Maintenance Division, Pudukkottai. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus thereby call for the records of the second respondent in Letter No.R.C.No.2096/JDO-1/2025, dated 30.09.2025 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and in consequence thereof direct the first respondent to consider the bid submitted by the petitioner for the works covered in Sl.No.1,3 of the tender notice No. 31/2025-26/HDO and declare him as eligible to participate in the tender process.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate W.P(MD) No.29847 of 2025 Velan Builders (P) Limited, No.3, Periyar Thottam, Ponneripuram Main Road, Ponmalaipatti, Trichirappalli, Represented by its Managing Director, V.Kannaiyan. ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintending Engineer (Highways)

(Construction and Maintenance) Circle, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)

(Construction and Maintenance) Division, Pudukkottai.

3. Illamvazhuthi, Superintending Engineer (Highways)

(Construction and Maintenance) Circle, Tiruchirappalli. 4. Matheswaran Divisional Engineer (Highways)

(Construction and Maintenance) Division, Pudukkottai. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus thereby call for the records relating to the impugned order of rejecting the petitioner's bid submitted by online by the first respondent on 08.10.2025 at 05.25 p.m., for Sl.No.TRY-64 and Sl.No.3 TRY-66 at 05.35 p.m and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and in consequence thereof declare the bid submitted by the petitioner as eligible to participate in the tender without production of Site Visit Certificate and Working Condition of Plant and Machineries from the second respondent and further direct the first respondent to finalize the tender process in accordance with regard to the work covered in Sl.No.1 and 3 of the tender notice No.31/2025-2026/HDO, dated 02.09.2025 issued by the 1st respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader – R1 &R2 Mr.R.Maheswaran – for R3 and R4

C O M M O N O R D E R

The petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by the second respondent dated 30.09.2025, wherein his request for issuance of a Working condition of Plants and Machineries Certificate has been rejected and the consequential technical bid submitted by the Company has also been rejected.

These two orders are put to challenge in these present writ petitions.

2. A perusal of the order impugned in the Writ Petition in W.P(MD) No.

235 of 2026 reveals that the petitioner's request for issuance of Plants and Machineries Certificate has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any supporting documents, such as tax invoice to establish his ownership over the construction equipment, namely, a Static Road Roller.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the same under a sale deed by way of second hand purchase and the sale deed dated 16.05.2025 was enclosed along with the tender documents. However, for not furnishin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top