P.Ganesan vs The Secretary
2026 Latest Caselaw 392 Mad

Madras High Court

P.Ganesan vs The Secretary on 17 February, 2026

Author: R.Vijayakumar

Bench: R.Vijayakumar

                                                                                           W.P(MD).No.2061 of 2026




                        BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                       ORDER RESERVED ON                          : 04.02.2026

                                       ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 17.02.2026

                                                 CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                            W.P.(MD).No.2061 of 2026
                                       and WMP(MD).Nos.1629 to 1631 of 2026

                     P.Ganesan                                                                   ....Petitioner

                                                                Vs

                     1.The Secretary
                     Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
                     Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009

                     2.The Director
                     Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
                     Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009

                     3.The District Collector
                     Pudukkottai District
                     Pudukkottai

                     4.The Project Director
                     D.R.D.A.(District Rural Development Agency)
                     Pudukkottai
                     Pudukkottai District

                     5.The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
                     Pudukkottai -1 Assessment Circle
                     No.5893, Kaatupudukkulam
                     Opp: RTO Office
                     Pudukkottai



                     1/13


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 02:57:44 pm )
                                                                                                     W.P(MD).No.2061 of 2026


                     6.The Executive Engineer (Rural Development)
                     District Rural Development Agency
                     Pudukkottai

                     7.M/s.Sree Amman Logistics
                     No.65, 1st Floor Poonga Nagar
                     Rajagopalapuram
                     Pudukkottai 622 003                                                            .....Respondents


                     Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
                     issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the
                     impugned           work    order      made         by       the        third    respondent       Vide
                     Se.Mu.No.E2/5722/2025 dated 25.11.2025 and quash the same as illegal,
                     arbitrary and obtained through fraud and consequently direct the respondents
                     1 to 4 to conduct a fresh tender process for the said work in a fair and
                     transparent manner, strictly adhering to the mandatory qualification criteria
                     and statutory requirements.

                                       For Petitioner          : Mr.B.Saravanan
                                                               Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Rajarajan

                                       For Respondents        : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
                                                              Additional Advocate General
                                                              Assisted by Mr.B.Saravanan
                                                              Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R6

                                                              :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
                                                              For Mr.K.Jeyamohan for R7

                                                                  ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the work

order issued in favour of the seventh respondent pursuant to a tender

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 02:57:44 pm )

notification dated 07.11.2025.

(A).Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner are as follows:

2.According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ

petitioner, a tender was floated by the fourth respondent for construction of

Chief Minister Mini Stadium at Thirumayam Assembly Constituency at

Segeerai in Sengeerai Panchayat, Arimalam Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai

District. The petitioner as well as the seventh respondent have submitted their

tender bids along with two other contractors. The technical bids were opened

on 13.11.2025. The price bid though had to be opened on 18.11.2025, it was

opened only on 24.11.2025. The work order has been issued on 25.11.2025,

which is under challenge.

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had

further submitted that after the technical bid was opened, questioning the

credentials of the seventh respondent herein, a complaint was lodged by the

petitioner company on 14.11.2025 through registered post. The same was

received only on 17.11.2015 by the Tender Accepting Authority. Thereafter,

without considering the objection or passing any orders, the present

impugned work order has been issued in favour of the seventh respondent.

4.According to the learned senior counsel, the chartered accountant

certificate submitted by the seventh respondent which is dated 19.05.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 02:57:44 pm )

reflects zero turnover for the previous year 2024-2025. Therefore, it clearly

indicates that no work was executed in one of the preceding five years and

thereby disqualifying the bidder from participating as per the tender

conditions.

5.The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that the tender

condition requires mandatory proof of ownership or lease of the specified

construction equipment. However, the documents filed on the side of the

seventh respondent would clearly reveal that they have already sold away the

vehicle and they have produced a fake registration certificate as if it

continues to remain in their name. In view of the said forged document, the

technical bid of the seventh respondent ought to have been rejected.

6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had

further submitted that the seventh respondent firm was incorporated only in

the year 2022, but they have submitted the documents dated 09.12.2020 in

support of its tender application. Therefore, the documents are misleading

and they clearly amounts to fabrication of documents and constitutes a

serious violation of the tender condition which warrants criminal action.

7.The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that the seventh

respondent has produced fabricated invoices solely for the purpose of tender

qualification. The submission of fabricated documents amount to criminal

offence and therefore, the technical bid of the seventh respondent ought to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 02:57:44 pm )

have been rejected. He had further submitted that GST registration of the

seventh respondent was suspended on 27.11.2025 and therefore, the firm was

not legally eligible to issue valid GST invoices or undertake taxable supplies.

The possession of an active GST registration is a mandatory statutory

requirement for tender eligibility and precondition for submission of the bids.

Concealment of the suspension amounts to material misrepresentation.

8.The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that the tender

documents were submitted in the name of 'Sree Amman Logistics' whereas

the five years financial statements enclosed along with the tender document

would reveal that they stand in the name of an individual namely

“S.V.Perumal Contractor”.

9.The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that after the

complaint was lodged by the petitioner, certain documents have been

collected from the seventh respondent in order to bring the seventh

respondent within the zone of consideration. This is clearly in violation of the

tender document. Only based upon the additional documents presented by the

seventh respondent, after opening of the technical bid, the technical bid of the

seventh respondent has been accepted. The learned Senior Counsel had

further submitted that the complaint of the petitioner dated 14.11.2025 was

sent only through registered post and it was not handed over in person.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 02:57:44 pm )

10.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for

the official respondents submitted that the technical bid was opened on

13.11.2025 and on the same day, the credentials were uploaded. The

petitioner has submitted his objection by hand on 14.11.2025. Therefore, the

explanation was called for from the seventh respondent on the same day. He

had submitted his explanation on 17.11.2025. Having been satisfied with the

said explanation, the price bid of the seventh respondent was opened on

24.11.2025 and the work order was issued on 25.11.2025.

11.According to the learned Additional Advocate General only four

allegations were made in the representation of the writ petitioner dated

14.11.2025. For all the four allegations, a show cause notice was issued to the

seventh respondent on the same day and a reply was received. Therefore, no

new allegations can be raised in the present writ petition challenging the

acceptance of the technical bid of the seventh respondent. Whatever,

objections that were raised by the writ petitioner was put on notice to the

seventh respondent and after being satisfied with the reply, his technical bid

was accepted and the price bid was opened.

12.The learned Additional Advocate General had further submitted that

as far as the vehicle owned by the seventh respondent firm is concerned, they

have been sold just prior to the tender notification and they have been leased

out in favour of the seventh respondent company. Therefore, the same vehicle

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 02:57:44 pm )

which is mentioned in the tender document alone are going to be put to use in

the construction of the Mini Stadium.

13.The learned Additional Advocate General had relied upon the

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517

( Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and others) and (2020) 16 SCC 489

(Silppi Constructions and Contractors Vs. Union of India and another) in

support of his contention.

14.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused

the material records.

(B).Discussion:

15.The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the work

order issued in favour of the seventh respondent primarily on the ground that

the technical bid of the seventh respondent ought not to have been accepted

in view of various irregularities and falsification of documents.

16. The tender notification was issued on 07.11.2025 and the technical

bid was opened on 13.11.2025 on the same day, the credential of the bidders

were uploaded. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

writ petitioner, on 14.11.2025 they have sent an objection with regard to the

technical bid of the seventh respondent through registered post and the same

was received by the authorities only on 17.11.2025. In such circumstances, a

show cause notice could not have been issued to the seventh respondent on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 02:57:44 pm )

14.11.2025. However, according to the learned Additional Advocate General,

apart from sending through registered post, the complaint was handed over in

person on 14.11.2025. Therefore, on the same date, a show cause notice was

issued to the second respondent.

17.In order to verify whether a complaint was handed over to the

respondent in person on 14.11.2025, the original records were called for. A

perusal of the original records reveal that the petitioner has lodged a

complaint in person on 14.11.2025 and there is a seal of the authorities.

Therefore, the authorities have issued a show cause notice to the seventh

respondent on the same day. Referring to the complaint dated 14.11.2025, the

seventh respondent has submitted their reply on 17.11.2025. Therefore, it is

clear that the complaint received by hand on 14.11.2025 was immediately

taken into consideration and a show cause has been issued to the seventh

respondent. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the complaint was

sent only through registered post cannot be countenanced.

18.A perusal of the complaint lodged by the writ petitioner vide his

Letter dated 14.11.2025 reveals that five allegations have been made as

against the seventh respondent. For all these five allegations, a reply has been

submitted by the seventh respondent on 17.11.2025 enclosing the documents.

Having been satisfied with the explanation, the authorities have proceeded to

open the price bid on 24.11.2025 in which the seventh respondent was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 02:57:44 pm )

declared as 'L1'. The work order was issued on 25.11.2025 and the present

writ petition has been filed on 08.12.2025 and numbered on 27.01.2026.

19.As far as the allegations raised by the writ petitioner are concerned,

they relate to the evaluation of the tender. The evaluation has to be done only

by the competent officials especially with regard to the financial credentials

of the successful firm. Even assuming that there are some errors or

irregularities in accepting the technical bid of the seventh respondent, unless

the petitioner is able to establish that the decision is totally arbitrary,

unreasonable, the Court cannot sit on appeal over the appropriate authority.

As far as the R.C.Book relating to the vehicle is concerned, for the same

vehicle instead of ownership, lease deed has been produced by the seventh

respondent which have been accepted by the authorities. Though this would

amount to procedural aberration, unless the petitioner is able to establish that

public interest would get affected in view of acceptance of these documents,

this Court cannot interfere in the same.

20.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2007) 14

SCC 517 (Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and others) in paragraph No.

22 has held as follows:

22........If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 02:57:44 pm )

error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes.......”

23.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2020) 16

SCC 489 (Silppi Constructions and Contractors Vs. Union of India and

another) in paragraph No.20 has held as follows:

“20.The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the state instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court’s interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case. “

24.In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact

that the seventh respondent has been declared as 'L1' and the petitioner is not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 02:57:44 pm )

able to establish that any public interest is likely to be affected, in order to

protect the private interest of the writ petitioner, this Court is not inclined to

entertain the present writ petition. Further, the delay in approaching this

Court after issuance of the work order and the commencement of the work

has also to be taken into consideration.

(C).Conclusion:

25.In view of the above said facts, there are no merits in the writ

petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

                                                                                                   17 .02.2026



                     Internet : Yes/No
                     Index : Yes/No
                     NCC        : Yes/No
                     msa







https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                     ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 02:57:44 pm )




                     To

                     1.The Secretary

Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Development Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009

2.The Director Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009

3.The District Collector Pudukkottai District Pudukkottai

4.The Project Director D.R.D.A.(District Rural Development Agency) Pudukkottai Pudukkottai District

5.The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Pudukkottai -1 Assessment Circle No.5893, Kaatupudukkulam Opp: RTO Office Pudukkottai

6.The Executive Engineer (Rural Development) District Rural Development Agency Pudukkottai

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 02:57:44 pm )

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

msa

Pre-delivery order made in

and WMP(MD).Nos.1629 to 1631 of 2026

17.02.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 02:57:44 pm )