The court upheld the interpretation of tender conditions regarding equipment ownership, dismissing the appeal as unmeritorious.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN WA No.697 of 2026

1.The Superintending Engineer, National Highways Department, Salem Circle, Salem 636 004

2.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways Department, Salem : Appellants versus R.Prakasam Masakalipatti Post, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal 637 401 : Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed against the order in WP No.55 of 2026 dated

05.01.2026.

For Appellants : Mr.P.Muthukumar, Additional Advocate-General, Assisted by Mr.K.Karhtik Jagannath, Government Advocate JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

The present writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, assails the order dated 05.01.2026, in WP No.55 of 2026, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition permitting the respondent herein to participate in the financial bid.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Clause 2.5 of the tender conditions has been misconstrued by the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as the respondent is not having the registered ownership of the equipment.

3. Clause 2.5 of the tender condition reads as under:

“The applicant should own or should have assured ownership to the key items of equipment (as per Annexure – I) in full working order, and must demonstrate that based known commitment, they will be available for use in the proposed contract.”

4. According to the aforesaid condition, the applicant should own or should have assured ownership of the equipment. Respondent has produced a sale deed in respect of Joseph Road Roller, purchased by him for a consideration of Rs.3,85,000/-. This satisfies condition imposed in Clause 2.5 since the respondent has been able to prove that he is the assured owner of the road roller.

5. We find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in holding that the respondent is eligible to participate in the financial bid. Accordingly, this appeal, being bereft of merits and substance, is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.