Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 11877
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J
SAIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS – Appellant
Versus
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER – Respondent
WP No. 3752 of 2026 | WMP NO. 4173 OF 2026 | WMP NO. 4174 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.L. Ganthimathi, L. Palani Muthu
For the Respondents: V. Jeevagiridharan
Compliance with mandatory technical conditions and submission of required certificates in a government tender process is essential; failure to provide proof of ownership or mandatory inspection certificates justifies the rejection of the bid.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 27.01.2026, which rejected their technical bid for road widening and strengthening work. The tender conditions, specifically Clauses 11 and 12, mandated the submission of a 'Work Inspection Certificate' and a 'Plant and Machinery certificate'. The court found that the petitioner failed to produce a registered sale deed or tax invoice for the plant and machinery, leading to the issuance of a machinery certificate with adverse remarks and the non-issuance of the work inspection certificate. The central issue was whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid at the technical evaluation stage was arbitrary given the failure to produce mandatory certificates. The court reasoned that the tender conditions explicitly stipulated that both the Work Site Inspection Certificate and Plant and Machinery Certificate are compulsory to process technical bids. Since the petitioner failed to comply with these mandatory requirements and could not provide proof of ownership for the required machinery, the rejection was deemed justified. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in the above terms.
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 27.01.2026 in ref. Tender ID No 2025_MoRTH_890314_1 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the bids of the petitioner in respect of the work of widening form intermediate lane to Two Lane and strengthening at KM 6/0- 11/350 and 11/700 - 15/2 of Vilangadu Road (M-743) road without insisting for the work ite inspection certificates and permit the petitioner to produce the same later after issuance of the certificates by the 2nd respondent and pass orders.
ORDER
The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief :
“ To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 27.01.2026 in ref. Tender ID No 2025_MoRTH_890314_1 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the bids of the petitioner in respect of the work of widening form intermediate lane to Two Lane and strengthening at KM 6/0- 11/350 and 11/700 - 15/2 of Vilangadu Road (M-743) road without insisting for the work ite inspection certificates and permit the petitioner to produce the same later after issuance of the certificates by the 2nd respondent”
The petitioner is a registered Class I Contractor registered with the Highways Department. On 17.12.2025, the first respondent had called for a tender for “Widening of Intermediate Lane to Two Lane and Strengthening at Km 6/0 - 11/350 and 11/700 -15/2 of Vilangadu Road (M-743)”. The last date for receipt of tender documents was on 19.01.2026 upto 15.00 hrs. Clause 11 of the tender condition stipulates that 'Work Inspection Certificate' and 'Plant and Machinery certificate’ issued by the second respondent have to be enclosed along with the tender documents, failing which, tender will be summarily rejected. Clause 12 stipulates that the last date for submitting an application to obtain the said certificates was on 06.01.2025 upto 17.45 hrs.
The petitioner who intends to participate in the said tender, had submitted his application and representation dated 05.01.2025 before the second respondent for obtaining necessary certificates. The same was not considered. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.520/2026 forbearing the first respondent from opening the tender documents. This Court, based on the instructions received from the Government Advocate that the site of the petitioner would be visited on 09.01.2026, vide its order dated 08.01.2026, has disposed of the writ petition.
The petitioner would submit that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the second respondent had visited the site on 09.01.2026. The petitioner was asked to produce the ownership documents relating to machineries.. The petitioner had produced an unregistered sale deed of the plant. Despite production of documents, on 14.01.2026, the second respondent had issued a machinery certificate but with adverse remarks and however, no work inspection certificate was issued to him, thereby, insisting the petitioner to produce a valid registered sale deed or a tax invoice of the plant.
Since the last date of the tender opening was on 19.01.2026, and due to the intervening holidays, the petitioner had submitted his tender documents on 15.01.2026, without the site inspection certificate. The petitioner apprehending that his tender documents may be rejected for non-production of site inspection certificate, had approached this Court with W.P.No.1976 of 2026 seeking a direction to the first respondent, not to insist for work inspection certificate and to permit the petitioner to produce the same after the certificate was issued by the second respondent and the same is pending before this Court, for want of certain details.
On 27.01.2026, the first respondent had rejected the tender of the petitioner stating that the Committee constituted
