M/S.Chinnamuthu Contractors v. The Superintending Engineer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI M/s.Chinnamuthu Contractors Rep. by Managing Partner M.Muthu No.3/35, Opp. Government Arts College Nehru Nagar, Savulupati Dharmapuri Collectorate Post Dharmapuri District.
...Petitioner
Vs 1.The Superintending Enginner PWD, Buildings (Construction & Maintenance) Circle Salem District.
2.The Executive Engineer PWD, Buildings (Construction & Maintenance) Circle
...Respondents
PRAYER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sakkarapani For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mrs.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2025.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with M.Parameswari started a joint venture under the name and style of M/s.Chinnamuthu Contractors. The main business of the petitioner firm is to undertake building constructions and other such construction works with the state government. Whileso, the 1st respondent authority invited e-tender dated 05.08.2025 for various constructions. The petitioner along with his team inspected the site allocated for the above mentioned work and after inspection, he requested the 2nd respondent in person to issue Site Visit Certificate which is the most required document for submitting the online e-tender application. In this regard, the petitioner also sent a representation dated 24.08.2025 to the 2nd respondent. But the same was not considered.
Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P No.32667 of 2023 before this court and when the case came up before this Court, the 2nd respondent issued the Site Visit Certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately submitted the tender application through online on 28.08.2025 and on the same day, his bid has been admitted by the duly constituted committee.
to issue the work order. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation to the 1st respondent on 01.09.2025 to issue the work order. But the same was not considered by them. Hence present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may issue a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2025 by issuing the work order, within a reasonable time.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that they will consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time fixed by this Court.
5. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
uma
6. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 06.10.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order uma To 1.The Superintending Enginner PWD, Buildings (Construction & Maintenance) Circle Salem District.
2.The Executive Engineer PWD, Buildings (Construction & Maintenance) Circle