M/S.V Best Engineers v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA AND WMP No. 53260 OF 2025 & WMP No. 3150 OF 2026 M/s.V Best Engineers Rep By Its Managing Partner K.Vignesh No.2B, New Vellala Street, Pandamangalam, Woraiyur, Trichy - 620 003.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Public Works, Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai -600 009.

2. The Engineer in Chief & Chief Engineer (General) Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.

3. The Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore- 641 001.

4. The Superintending Engineer Public Works Department, Buildings Construction & Maintenance Circle, Coimbatore- 641 001.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of

the 4th respondent pertaining to the impugned rejection order of the petitioner's technical bid for Tender ID 2025_PWD_ 619756_1 uploaded on 27.11.2025 by the 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 4th respondent to treat the petitioner as qualified in the technical bid and further direct the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's financial bid for Tender bearing Tender 2025_PWD_619756_1 in accordance with law and pass orders.

For Petitioner :

Mr.G.Dhinesh For Respondents:

Mr.M.Suresh Kunar Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4

ORDER

The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief : "To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 4th respondent pertaining to the impugned rejection order of the petitioner's technical bid for Tender ID 2025_PWD_ 619756_1 uploaded on 27.11.2025 by the 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 4th respondent to treat the petitioner as qualified in the technical bid and further direct the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's financial bid for Tender bearing Tender 2025_PWD_619756_1 in accordance with law and pass orders."

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered as Class-1A Contractor with Public Works Department. The petitioner had participated in the e-tender

floated by the 4th respondent vide notification dated 23.09.2025 for carrying out lighting arrangements in Karamadai to Tholampalayam Road in Coimbatore District. The petitioner's technical bid was rejected on 16.10.2025 for the reason that the petitioner has not uploaded the copy of the Solvency Certificate. Since the said tender was found to be a single-tender and non-responsive, the same was cancelled. Thereafter, the 4th respondent had issued re-tender for the said project on 28.10.2025. In the said tender, there were three participants including the petitioner. According to the petitioner, its technical bid was rejected by the 4th respondent on 27.11.2025 without assigning any reasons. In the impugned rejection order, it had only updated the petitioner status as "Not Admitted" and in the reason column it is mentioned "Other documents not fulfilled".

3. The petitioner would contend that the reason for rejection is due to the mismatch of the name found in the Solvency Certificate. The petitioner had admitted that it had not uploaded the copy of the Solvency Certificate which they had submitted before the Registering Authority at the time of registration as Contractor in PWD. The petitioner would submit that originally the petitioner firm consists of two partners namely (i) Vignesh ( the petitioner herein) and (ii) Indrani. The said Indrani had retired from the petitioner's partnership firm and in her place one Mrs.Thenmozhi was inducted on 13.11.2023. The petitioner

would submit that the solvency certificate of Thenmozhi is furnished in the tender referred to above. Necessary steps were taken by the petitioner to change the names of the partners in the Government records. But no action was taken by the respondents to effect the name change of partners in the Government records. In this regard, the petitioner had also approached this Court in WP(MD) No.8748 of 2025 and had obtained an order of this Court in his favour on 04.04.2025. Challenging this order, a writ appeal was preferred in WA(MD) No.1748 of 2025, which ended in a dismissal on 04.07.2025. The petitioner would also submit that in the yet another tender floated by the 4th respondent, it had rejected the petitioner's technical bid with similar remarks as in the case of present tender.

Contending that the 4th respondent acting on his own whims and fancies and rejecting the petitioner's technical bid without assigning any reason, is manifestly arbitrary and irrational, the petitioner is before this Court to quash the impugned order and to consequently direct the respondent to treat the petitioner as a qualified bidder in technical bid.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would submit that even prior to the passing of the impugned order, the tender of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 24.11.2025, however, this has not been challenged by the petitioner and the petitioner is before this Court challenging the later order dated 27.11.2025. Further, the

petitioner's tender was rejected only on the ground that the property shown in the Solvency Certificate submitted by the petitioner, is under mortgage. Clause 7 of the tender document stipulates that the contractor should not sell or mortgage the properties which has been notified in the Solvency Certificate. Hence, the respondents seeks to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. A perusal of the records shows that the even prior to passing of the impugned order dated 27.11.2025, the petitioner had approached the 4th respondent vide his letter dated 14.11.2025 seeking to revoke the rejection order dated 16.10.2025, to which the 4th respondent has responded vide its letter dated 24.11.2025. From a perusal of the letter of the 4th respondent dated 24.11.2026, it is seen that the reason for rejection was that Solvency Certificate submitted by the petitioner was not in the prescribed format and further the property which has been shown in the Solvency Certificate was under mortgage. Therefore, the credit worthiness of the tenderer was in question. Hence, there is no possibility either to revoke or reconsider the rejection order. Be that as it may, the letter dated 24.11.2025, which has been served upon the petitioner rejecting the petitioner's tender has not been challenged by the petitioner, and the petitioner has come forward to challenge the subsequent order dated 27.11.2025.

7. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition as the petitioner has only placed before this Court the subsequent order, which is impugned herein alleging that no reasons have been given for the rejection, but, however the petitioner had concealed the earlier letter dated 24.11.2025 passed by the 4th respondent citing the reasons for rejection vis-a-vis, the property shown in Solvency Certificate, is under mortgage, which is against the tender Rules in force. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 09-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order DS To:

1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Public Works, Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai -600 009.

2. The Engineer in Chief & Chief Engineer (General) Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.

3. The Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore- 641 001.

4. The Superintending Engineer Public Works Department,

Buildings Construction & Maintenance Circle, Coimbatore- 641 001.

P.T.ASHA J.

DS AND WMP NO. 53260 OF 2025 &WMP NO. 3150 OF 2026 09-02-2026