Madras High Court
M/S.Vijay Durgambiga ... vs The Superintending Engineer (H) on 29 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)Nos.1239, 1241 & 1242 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)Nos.1239, 1241 & 1242 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5202, 5204 & 5205 of 2021
M/s.Vijay Durgambiga Construction,
Rep. by its Partner,
N.Manoj, S/o.E.Natarajan
D.No.4D, Ramalinga Street,
Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli. : Appellants in all Writ Appeals
Vs.
1.The Superintending Engineer (H),
NABARD and Rural Roads,
Tirunelveli – 2.
2.The Divisional Engineer (H),
NABARD and Rural Roads,
Tirunelveli – 2. : Respondents in all Writ Appeals
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, praying to set aside the common order dated 23.03.2021, in W.P.
(MD)Nos.3237, 3241 & 3247 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)Nos.1239, 1241 & 1242 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanan
for Mr.M.Maharaja
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manickam,
Standing Counsel for State Govt.
[In all Writ Appeals]
COMMON JUDGMENT
**************************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.M.Saravanan, for Mr.M.Maharaja, learned
Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned
Standing Counsel for Government appearing for the respondents.
2.With the consent on either side, these Writ Appeals are taken
up for disposal.
3.These appeals by the writ petitioner are directed against the
common order dated 23.03.2021, in W.P.(MD)Nos.3237, 3241 & 3247 of
2021.
4.The appellant challenged the rejection of their technical bids
in respect of the tenders called for by the respondent department in
which they had participated. The orders of rejection of the technical bids
were on the ground that the appellant has not complied with the technical
specifications.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/6
W.A.(MD)Nos.1239, 1241 & 1242 of 2021
5.Mr.M.Saravanan, learned Counsel appearing for
Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that it is
not as if the appellant has not submitted the required certificate but the
certificate was not on or after the date of publication of the tender, but
just before the publication of the tender and in terms of the provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, the tender inviting
authority was empowered to call for clarification from the appellant and
without doing so, the appellant's technical bids have been rejected for the
reason they are hyper technical. Further, it is submitted that the
condition which has been imposed for production of the plant working
condition certificate to be on or after the date of publication of the tender
should be read down to mean it is only directory.
6.We have heard Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel
for Government on the above submissions. The law on the subject is well
settled. Courts are to strictly interpret the terms of the tender
notification, as it is the tender inviting authority who will decide as to
what is the requirement to be fulfilled by the tenderers and seldom the
Court should substitute the opinion of the experts. There may be several
reasons as to why the authorities have imposed a condition that the plant
working condition certificate for all the plants required for the work
obtained from Divisional Engineer (Quality Control) should be on or after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/6
W.A.(MD)Nos.1239, 1241 & 1242 of 2021
the date of publication of the tender. It is not for the Court to substitute
the opinion of the experts who finalised the tender conditions. In any
event, there was no challenge made by the appellant to the conditions of
tenders, rather the appellant submitted to the jurisdictional authorities
and placed their bids and it will be too late in the way for the appellant to
turn around and contend that the conditions for production of certificate
which should be on or after the tender notification to be read as directory.
Thus, in our opinion, the learned Writ Court rightly dismissed the writ
petitions and we find no grounds to interfere with the said order.
7.Accordingly, the Writ Appeals stand dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
29.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/6
W.A.(MD)Nos.1239, 1241 & 1242 of 2021
To
1.The Superintending Engineer (H),
NABARD and Rural Roads,
Tirunelveli – 2.
2.The Divisional Engineer (H),
NABARD and Rural Roads,
Tirunelveli – 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5/6
W.A.(MD)Nos.1239, 1241 & 1242 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)Nos.1239, 1241 & 1242 of 2021
29.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
