M/S.V Best Engineers v. The Chief Engineer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN and C.M.P.(MD)No.2823 of 2026 V.Best Engineers Represented by Its Managing Partner, Vignesh, S/o R.K.Moorthy, 3, 4th Street, Ramalinga Nagar, West Extension 3, Tirughirappalli-620 003 ... Appellant Vs.

1.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Trichy Region, Trichy-620001.

2.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, PWD Building (Construction and Maintenance) Circle, Trichy-620001.

3.The Executive Engineer(Electrical) Public Works Department, Electrical Division, Trichy.

1/8

4.M/s. Vasanth Electricals, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.Manikandan, No.31, A, Anna Nagar, Subramaniyapuram, Trichy-620 020.

... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 09.02.2026 passed in W.P.(MD)No.87 of 2026 and allow the Writ Appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran, For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Addl. Advocate General II Assisted by Mr.A.Kannan Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) The present Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No. 87 of 2026, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed, thereby confirming the impugned order dated 26.12.2025, by which the technical bid of the Appellant came to be rejected. 2/8

2. According to the Writ Petitioner, the respondents issued a tender notice inviting applications for providing LED Street Light arrangement to Thuraiyur Bypass (Phase II) Road at Thuraiyur Taluk in Trichy District. The Writ Petitioner has submitted his tender on 11.12.2025 and e-tender was opened on 3.30 p.m., onwards on 12.12.2025. The evaluation process was continued up to 26.12.2025, and the minutes of the Evaluation Committee were uploaded on the same day, i.e., 26.12.2025, wherein the bid submitted by the Writ Petitioner Company was rejected on three grounds. The first ground is that the copy of the Solvency Certificate and Encumbrance Certificate as furnished to the registration authority at the time of registration in his or her/their name as contractor in PWD is not enclosed.

The second ground is that the tenderer has quoted (-) 33% of value against the value put to tender which is non workable rate and hence, the quality of work will be questionable and the last ground is that the acceptance letter of the technical person concerned did not enclose. Challenging the said rejection order, the Writ Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition.

3. The Learned single Judge after analyzing the entire fact found that the last two grounds assigned by the Tender Evaluating 3/8

Authority for rejecting the technical bid are not sustainable in the eye of law. With regard to the first ground, the learned single Judge has clearly noted that the registration of the petitioner firm as registered contractor could not be updated due to the fact that the properties offered as security by newly inducted partner viz., Thenmozhi were already encumbered one month prior to the date of Solvency Certificate. Even assuming that the solvency certificate is not required, the alternative certificates were uploaded by the Writ Petitioner only on 04.12.2025, seven days prior to the last date for submission of the bid. The last date for submission of tender is 11.12.2025 Therefore, the learned Single Judge has held that in between 04.12.2025 and 11.12.

2025 the genuineness of the certificate enclosed by the petitioner firm could not be ascertained by the authorities. Hence, on the date of evaluation of technical bid, the petitioner firm's registration has not been updated at all. Since the petitioner firm is not a registered contractor, the question of evaluating the technical bid does not arise. Hence, accepting the reasons assigned by the Respondents for rejecting the tender, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.

Registered Contractor, the same had not been uploaded/updated in the official portal.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that, even in the subsequent Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 5359 of 2026, by order dated 26.02.2026, the Petitioner had sought for a relief to register it as a Registered Contractor. Hence, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, as on the date of evaluation of the technical bid, the Petitioner firm was not a Registered Contractor. He would further submit that the work order has already been issued and that approximately 70% of the work has been completed.

5. After hearing the submissions made on either, we have perused the entire materials available on record.

6. Admittedly, a new partner had been inducted, and the property details were not furnished immediately, resulting in a delay in verifying the genuineness of the certificate. Further, the Petitioner was not a Registered Contractor as on the date of evaluation of the technical 5/8

bid. Hence, we are of the view that the rejection of the Petitioner's tender does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, we find that no interference is called for with the order of the learned Single Judge and therefore, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 18.03.2026 Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No vsm 6/8

To 1.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Trichy Region, Trichy-620001.

2.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, PWD Building (Construction and Maintenance) Circle, Trichy-620001.

3.The Executive Engineer(Electrical) Public Works Department, Electrical Division, Trichy.

7/8

N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

vsm 18.03.2026 8/8