Madras High Court
M/S.Megala Construction vs The District Collector / Chairman on 10 June, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD)Nos.15468 to 15472 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD)Nos.15468 to 15472 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.11687, 11689, 11695, 11697, 11727, 11728, 11703, 11704,
11693 and 11696 of 2025
M/s.Megala Construction,
Rep. by Managing Partner, P.V.Mathivanan,
Having Office at No.74, Neerpalani Post,
Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkotai District. ... Petitioner in all the W.Ps.
-vs-
1.The District Collector / Chairman,
District Rural Development Agency,
Pudukkottai District.
2.The Project Director / Additional Collector (Development),
District Rural Development Agency, Pudukkottai. ... Respondents 1 and 2
in all the W.Ps.
3.M/s.KRN and Co.,
663, Trichy Pudukkottai Road,
Muthudayanpatti, Pudukkottai District. ... 3rd Respondent
in W.P.(MD)No.15468/2025
4.V.Chandran .... 3rd Respondent
in W.P.(MD)No.15469/2025
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 06:08:35 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.15468 to 15472 of 2025
5.MPS. Pari Construction,
Rep. by Managing Director,
Pon Parivallal,
H-16, Poonga Nagar,
Rajagopalapuram Post,
Pudukkottai District. .... 3rd Respondent
in W.P.(MD)No.15470/2025
6.M/s.CSB Construction,
Rep. by Managing Director,
C.Boopathi,
No.1421-A, Fathima Nagar,
Illupur Taluk, Pudukottai District. ..... 3rd Respondent
in W.P.(MD)No.15471/2025
7.M/s.Sree Amman Logistics,
M-65, Upstair,
Rajagopalapuram,
Pudukottai District. ..... 3rd Respondent
in W.P.(MD)No.15472/2025
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)Nos.15468 to 15470 and 15472 of 2025: Writ Petitions
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to rejection of the
petitioner's bid passed by the first respondent on 04.04.2025 without stating any
reasons for rejection and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and therefor to
direct the selection of the third respondent as L1 (Successful tenderer) as non
existence and in consequence thereof to direct the petitioner as eligible to be
considered for the tender process.
____________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 06:08:35 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.15468 to 15472 of 2025
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.15471 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus,
(a) to call for the records relating to rejection of the petitioner's bid passed
by the first respondent on 04.04.2025 as rejected without stating any reason and
quash the same as illegal in consequence thereof to declare the petitioner as
eligible to be considered for the tender process; and
(b) to call for the records of the first respondent's order dated 04.04.2025,
declaring the third respondent as L1 (successful bidder) and quash the same as
illegal and arbitrary and in consequence thereof to declare the petitioner as
successful bidder in the tender ID:2025_RDTN_530237_1, held on 27.03.2025.
For Petitioner in all the W.Ps. : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For R1 and R2 in all the W.Ps. : Mr.Ajmalkhan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman
Government Advocate
For R3 in all the W.Ps. : Mr.M.Rajarajan
COMMON ORDER
By this common order, all the five Writ Petitions are being disposed of.
2. These Writ Petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, who
participated in the tender process initiated by the respondents pursuant to the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 06:08:35 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.15468 to 15472 of 2025
Tender Notifications dated 15.03.2025, 04.03.2025, 15.03.2025, 04.03.2025 and
02.03.2025. The last date for submitting bids under the said Notification was
25.03.2025, 27.03.2025, 25.03.2025, 27.03.2025 and 12.03.2025. The petitioner
submitted his bids, but they were rejected on 04.04.2025. Aggrieved by the
rejection, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petitions
on 16.04.2025. However, the petitioner failed to pursue them diligently thereafter.
In the meantime, the respondents awarded the contract to the L1 bidder.
3. Mr.Ajmalkhan, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions,
submits that, with respect to the road stretch covered under W.P.(MD) No.15468
of 2025, the contractor has completed the work on 05.04.2025.
4. It is further submitted that in respect of the remaining road works, which
are the subject matter of the other Writ Petitions, approximately 80% of the work
has been completed. It is contended that these Writ Petitions are liable to be
dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy under Section 11 of
the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, read with the Tamil Nadu
Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in
Tenders (Public Private Partnership Procurement) Rules, 2012.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 06:08:35 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.15468 to 15472 of 2025
5. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)Nos.355 to 361 of 2018, dated
07.03.2018 (M/s.Dharani Hi-Tech Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. The District Collector
/ Chairman and others), where reference was made to several decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General has also drawn the attention of
this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Motors Limited
vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) and
others, reported in (2023) 19 SCC 1.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for
the third respondent.
8. Though these Writ Petitions were filed promptly after the rejection of the
petitioner's bid, they were not pursued thereafter and were left to become
infructuous. In the meantime, the contracts have been awarded, work has
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 06:08:35 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.15468 to 15472 of 2025
commenced and in some cases, the work has completed. Therefore, as on the date
of hearing, the cause of action no longer survives and these Writ Petitions are
liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous. However, the petitioner is at
liberty to approach the appellate authority under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu
Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, for appropriate relief, or to approach the Civil
Court for compensation, if so advised.
9. It is also observed that there are prima facie indications that the technical
bid and price bid may have been evaluated on the same day. While it is the
contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the technical bid was
evaluated on 27.03.2025. This is a matter which warrants detailed consideration
before the competent appellate authority under Section 11 of the Act.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, with liberty to the
petitioner to file an appeal under Section 11 of the said Act. It is made clear that
such an appeal shall be filed within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 06:08:35 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.15468 to 15472 of 2025
NCC : Yes / No 10.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
smn2
To:-
1.The District Collector / Chairman,
District Rural Development Agency,
Pudukkottai District.
2.The Project Director / Additional Collector (Development),
District Rural Development Agency, Pudukkottai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 06:08:35 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.15468 to 15472 of 2025
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2
Common order in
W.P.(MD)Nos.15468 to 15472 of 2025
10.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 06:08:35 pm )
