A partnership firm challenged rejection of its tender for a BT road relaying work on the ground that pre-qualification certificates stood in the partner's individual name. The court held the rejection complied with tender conditions and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD) No.14152 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD)No.14152 of 2025 and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.10285 & 10286 of 2025
M/s.E.K.S.Constructions,
Represented by its Partner Kandasamy.
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Municipal Administration, Urban Administrative Building Campus, M.R.C Nagar, Chennai - 28.
2.The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, No.294, Melakkal Main Road, Kochadai,
Madurai - 625 016.
3.The Commissioner, Manamadurai Municipality, Sivagangai District. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Tender Rejection Order dated 30.04.2025 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same pertaining to the Tender Reference No.1774/2024/E1-P5 bearing Tender ID:
Page 1 of 8
W.P.(MD) No.14152 of 2025
2025_MAWS_545139_1 on the file of the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents to open the price bid and award the said contract work to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kannan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Baskaran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.A.Kathiravan Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
“to call for the records relating to the Tender Rejection Order dated 30.04.2025 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same pertaining to the Tender Reference No. 1774/2024/E1-P5 bearing Tender ID: 2025_MAWS_545139_1 on the file of the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents to open the price bid and award the said contract work to the petitioner.”
registered partnership firm, that originally its partner Erulappan Kandasamy was individually working as a Class I contractor for various
_________Page 2 of 8
W.P.(MD) No.14152 of 2025
Government tenders and that he continued to carry on the said work. The petitioner would submit that he had registered with the GST authority and was issued a GST Registration Certificate in his individual name on 24.04.2018. Thereafter, partnership firm was formed and this firm has also been registered as a Class I contractor and a certificate dated 04.03.2024 recognizing the same has been issued to the petitioner firm.
_________Page 3 of 8
W.P.(MD) No.14152 of 2025
and the second envelope contains financial tender documents. The petitioner would submit that the petitioner firm was fully qualified to participate in the tender. On 28.04.2025, the petitioner firm had submitted tender documents by way of tender bid and financial bid with supporting documents online. Though the documents were submitted online, the said Kandasamy Erulappan had also visited the office of the 3rd respondent in person and submitted the tender bid cover and financial bid cover in sealed covers.
_________Page 4 of 8
W.P.(MD) No.14152 of 2025
_________Page 5 of 8
W.P.(MD) No.14152 of 2025
work certificate in the name of the firm, but only the certificates standing in the name of the individual. Further, though GST was in the name of the firm, however, the income tax files stood in the name of the individual. Even the annual turn over in the income tax returns only stands in the name of the individual and not in the name of the firm. Therefore, the petitioner has not qualified in the technical bid. The rejection is not only on the ground of the petitioner not producing the work certificate, but it is also with reference to other parameters which is not been complied with by the petitioner.
23.09.2025
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes
gbg
_________Page 6 of 8
W.P.(MD) No.14152 of 2025
To
Page 7 of 8
W.P.(MD) No.14152 of 2025
P.T.ASHA, J.
gbg
W.P.(MD) No.14152 of 2025
23.09.2025
_________Page 8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether rejection of the petitioner's technical bid for non-production of documents in the firm's name was sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.E.K.S.Constructions, represented by its Partner Kandasamy
The Director of Municipal Administration
The Regional Director of Municipal Administration
The Commissioner, Manamadurai Municipality
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
