[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
K.Vasanthakumar vs The Chief Engineer – Trichy Region on 25 February, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
WP(MD).No.3884 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 18.02.2026
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 25.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.3884 of 2026
and WMP(MD).Nos.3186 & 3187 of 2026
K.Vasanthakumar ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The Chief Engineer – Trichy Region
Government of Tamil Nadu
Public Works Department
Office of the Superintending Engineer Buildings ( C & M)
Circle, Thanjavur -1
2.Executive Engineer
Public Work Department
Buildings (C & M) Division, Thanjavur -1 ....Respondents
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for the records of the first
respondent relating to the impugned rejection of the petitioner vide
impugned order dated 06.02.2026 in Tender ID No.2026_PWD_647584_2,
Tender Ref.No.75/2025-2026, pertaining to the work of “Construction of 12
Class Room Building in Government Higher Secondary School at Poondi in
Thanjavur District under NABARD RIDF XXXI” and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to open the financial bid of the petitioner
and proceed further as per the tender conditions.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )
WP(MD).No.3884 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr.P.J.Rishikesh
For Respondents :Mr.M.Ajmalkhan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
the first respondent wherein the petitioner's technical bid was rejected by the
Tender Inviting Authority pertaining to the work for construction of 12 Class
Room Building in Government Higher Secondary School at Poondi in
Thanjavur District.
(A).Factual Matrix:
2.It is the case of the petitioner that he is a registered Civil Engineering
Contractor possessing substantial work experience with Public Works
Department (Buildings and Maintenance, Water Resources Department),
Forest Department and various private civil construction projects.
3.The first respondent has issued an e-Tender notification dated
20.01.2026 inviting bids for the work in Government Higher Secondary
School at Poondi in Thanjavur District under NABARD RIDF XXXI. The
deadline for submission of bids was fixed on 05.02.2026 up to 3.00 p.m and
the technical bids were scheduled to be opened on 06.02.2026 at 3.00 p.m.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )
4.As per tender condition, a Site Visit Certificate is required to be
issued by the respondents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the petitioner had inspected the work site well in advance and repeatedly
sought issuance of the said certificate from the concerned authorities and he
has also sent representation on 30.01.2026. However, he had personally
visited the office of the second respondent on 04.02.2026 for the specific
purpose of obtaining the Site Visit Certificate. He was informed that the
second respondent was unavailable. Therefore, he was not in a position to
obtain a certificate or any clarification despite his bona fide efforts.
(B).Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:
5.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had
addressed a letter on 05.02.2026 to the respondent along with self-declaration
to the effect that he had visited the work site. However, the respondents failed
and neglected to furnish the Site Visit Certificate prior to the submission of
the deadline. The petitioner had further submitted his bid through Tamil Nadu
e-Procurement portal on 05.02.2026 after remitting the prescribed EMD
along with essential eligibility requirements.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that a
letter dated 03.02.2026 has been purportedly issued by the second
respondent's office. However, the letter was received by the petitioner only in
the evening of 06.02.2026 after the deadline of the submission has already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )
expired. According to him, the non-issuance of the Site Visit Certificate and
timings of the discharge of the letter dated 03.02.2026 would clearly establish
that with malafide, the officials are acted in order to favour some other
persons. On 06.02.2026, at the time of opening of the technical bid, the
petitioner's bid has been marked “Not Admitted” for the reason Site Visit
Certificate issued by the competent authority is not enclosed.
7.According to the petitioner, the Site Visit Certificate has been issued
only to some favourable persons for extraneous reasons with mala fide
intentions, effectively creating a monopoly and stifling fair competition. He
further stated that the non-furnishing of the Site Visit Certificate despite his
best effort or beyond his control and due to the attitude on the part of the
second respondent in order to favour certain persons. In such circumstance,
the non-furnishing of the Site Visit Certificate should not be considered to be
a disqualification for considering the technical bid of the writ petitioner.
When the petitioner has already visited the site and he had enclosed
photographs of the same, insisting for the Site Visit Certificate from
concerned authority is only to create monopoly. Hence, he prayed for setting
aside the order of the rejection of the technical bid and direct the respondents
to open financial bid of the petitioner and proceed further.
8.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the respondents submitted that the petitioner had first sent an application on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )
30.01.2026 through courier indicating that he is a professional contractor and
the second application was addressed by him on 02.02.2026 again referring
himself to be a professional civil engineering contractor and therefore, on
03.02.2026, a letter was addressed to the writ petitioner calling upon him to
produce the records to show that he is a registered contractor of PWD. The
said intimation was also sent by mail to the writ petitioner on the same day.
Hence, the petitioner having not established that he is a registered contractor,
for seeking a certificate of Site Visit Inspection, the authorities have called
upon him to produce the said certificate. However, the petitioner having
failed to do so, cannot now complaint about the officials.
9.The learned Additional Advocate General had further contended that
all other tenderers who had sought for Site Visit Inspector Certificate have
enclosed certificate to the effect that they are registered contractors of PWD.
In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that the authorities have
acted in a malafide manner.
10.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
(C).Discussion:
11.The technical bid submitted by the writ petitioner on 05.02.2026 has
been rejected by the first respondent on the sole ground that the petitioner has
not enclosed a Site Visit Inspection Certificate to be issued by the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )
respondent.
12.The e-Tender notice published in Deccan Chronicle, Chennai
Edition on 22.01.2026 clearly reveals that the tenders are invited from the
eligible registered contractors of PWD. The tender notification dated
20.01.2026 reveals that e-Tenders are invited from the eligible registered
contractors by the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D Buildings (C & M) Circle,
Thanjavur -1. Therefore, the contractor who is registered in PWD could alone
submit his bid for the above said tender notification.
13.As per special condition in the tender notification, the request of the
Site Visit Certificate should reach the second respondent 4 days before the
last date of tender receipt ie. on or before 01.02.2026. The certificate would
be issued by the second respondent before 05.02.2026. Therefore, it is clear
that the enclosure of the Site Visit Certificate along with tender documents is
mandatory as per instruction to the tender in the tender document.
14.The petitioner herein had made an application to the second
respondent on 30.01.2026 through courier seeking Site Visit Inspection
Certificate. In the said request, it is mentioned that the petitioner is a
professional contractor. A second application was addressed by the petitioner
on 02.02.2026 enclosing the site visit photos. Even in the said application it
is mentioned that the petitioner is a professional Civil Engineering
Contractor. Having received the application dated 02.02.2026, the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )
officials on 03.02.2026 has addressed a communication to the petitioner
requesting him to approach the office directly along with records to indicate
that he is a registered PWD contractor so as to get his certificate for site
inspection. This has been sent by a registered post on 04.02.2026 which the
petitioner has received it on 06.02.2026 after the deadline had ended for
submission of the tender document. Therefore, it is the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that with some malafide intention in order
to favour some chosen persons, the second respondent has acted in a biased
manner.
15.The letters addressed by the petitioner on 30.01.2026 and
02.02.2026 does not reveal that the petitioner is a contractor, registered with
PWD. As pointed out supra, only if any request emanates from the registered
contractors of PWD, the second respondent has to respond. However, they
addressed a communication to the petitioner on 03.02.2026 calling upon him
to visit office along with registration certificate as a contractor for issuance of
Site Visit Inspection Certificate.
16.The learned Additional Advocate General brought to the notice of
the Court that such a communication has been addressed to the petitioner
through mail also on 03.02.2026. It is not the case of the petitioner that he
had not received any mail from the second respondent on 03.02.2026 calling
upon him to approach the office. Since the enclosure of the Site Visit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )
Inspection Certificate is mandatory for considering the technical bid, the
petitioner having not produced the same, the first respondent cannot be found
fault with, for rejecting the technical bid of the writ petitioner.
17.The learned Additional Advocate General had brought to the notice
of the Court that the other contractors while applying for Site Visit Inspection
Certificate, have enclosed the certificate of their registration.
18.As cited supra, since the petitioner in his communication has not
stated that he is a registered contractor, the respondent officials were
constrained to issue a notice for calling upon him to approach them along
with the document to prove that the petitioner is a registered contractor for
getting a certificate of Site Visit Inspection. In such circumstance, the
allegations made against the respondents cannot be countenanced.
(D).Conclusion:
19.In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the
writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.02.2026
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )
To
1.The Chief Engineer – Trichy Region
Government of Tamil Nadu
Public Works Department
Office of the Superintending Engineer Buildings ( C & M)
Circle, Thanjavur -1
2.Executive Engineer
Public Work Department
Buildings ( C & M) Division, Thanjavur -1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
and WMP(MD).Nos.3186 & 3187 of 2026
25.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )
