Dismissed¶36

R.Ganesan v. The Superintendent Engineer

Madras HC27 Oct 2025WP(MD)/28937/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tender acceptance; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Highways Department; tender notice No.31/2025-2026/HDO dated 02.09.2025; CRIDP-2025-2026; packages TRY 67, TRY 74, TRY 75, TRY 76; work site inspection certificate; machinery working certificate; Superintendent Engineer (Highways) Tiruchirappalli; Divisional Engineers Aranthangi and Pudukkottai; pen-altered application letter dated 22.09.2025; documents alleged subsequently added or created/fabricated; no application received for TRY 76; dismissal without costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; Justice P.T. Asha; decided 27.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

The original letter addressed to the second respondent, produced on 27.10.2025, pertained only to packages TRY 74 and TRY 75 and not to TRY 76. ¶34-35

R.Ganesan Vs The Superintendent Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the first respondent to accept the petitioner's tender documents for package No.TRY76 without insisting on work site inspection certificate and machinery working certificate, to consider the second respondent's certificates for TRY 74 and 75, and to process and award the tenders. +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The original letter addressed to the second respondent, produced on 27.10.2025, pertained only to packages TRY 74 and TRY 75 and not to TRY 76.

¶34-35

Key takeaways

The documents enclosed in the petitioner's typed set of papers appear to have been subsequently added or to be a created document.ratio¶35-36
Since no application had in fact been made for TRY 76, there was no fault on the part of the third respondent; accordingly the writ petition was dismissed, with no costs awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), Justice P.T. Asha — Writ Petition (MD) No. 28937 of 2025, decided 27.10.2025. A registered First Class Highways contractor sought a writ of mandamus (Art. 226) directing the first respondent to accept his tender for package TRY76 (tender notice No.31/2025-2026/HDO dated 02.09.2025, CRIDP-2025-2026 works) without insisting on work site inspection and machinery working certificates, and to consider the second respondent's certificates dated 30.09.2025 and 03.10.2025 for TRY 74 and 75. On the Court's direction the original application letter was produced: it related only to TRY 74 and TRY 75, bore a pen-altered date of 22.09.2025, and the documents in the petitioner's typed set appeared subsequently added or created. Holding that no application had in fact been made for TRY 76 and that no fault attached to the third respondent, the Court dismissed the writ petition without costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P(MD).No.22432 of 2025).

¶1

W.P(MD)No.28937 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.28937 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD).No.22432 of 2025

R.Ganesan

... Petitioner

1.The Superintendent Engineer (High Ways), Construction and Management Circle, Post Box No.888, TVS Toll Gate, Tiruchirappalli -20.

¶11

2.The Divisional Engineer (High ways), Construction and Management Division, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

3.The Divisional Engineer (High Ways), Constructions and Management Division, Pudukottai.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to accept the tender documents in respect of package No.TRY76 without insisting work site inspection certificate and machinery working certificate and consequently consider the certificate dated 30.09.2025 03.10.2025 issued by the second respondent in respect of package No.TRY 74 and 75 and process the tender documents submitted by the petitioner and award the tenders.

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P(MD)No.28937 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.D.Sasikumar Additional Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus to

¶22

direct the first respondent to accept the tender documents in respect of package No.TRY76 without insisting work site inspection certificate and machinery working certificate and consequently, consider the certificate dated 30.09.2025 03.10.2025 issued by the second respondent in respect of package No.TRY 74 and 75 and process the tender documents submitted by the petitioner and award the tenders.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the registered First Class Contractor before the first respondent. The first respondent has issued tender notice No.31/2025-2026/HDO dated 02.09.2025 inviting online bids for various works in the Highways Department. The tender notification listed 13 works and the documents were available from 09.09.2025 and the tenders were to be submitted online on 07.10.2025.

¶24

The petitioner submits that he had participated for package No.TRY67, 74, 75 and 76 under scheme of CRIDP-2025-2026 works. The petitioner would

¶25

2/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P(MD)No.28937 of 2025

¶28

submit that he had applied for work site inspection certificate and machinery working certificate in respect of package No.67 to the third respondent and with regard to package Nos.74, 75 and 76 to the second respondent. The third respondent had not issued certificate, though the request was made on 22.09.2025.

¶29

The petitioner would further submit that similar request was made to the second respondent with regard to the package Nos.74, 75 and 76 and the second respondent has issued certificate to the petitioner with reference to TRY Nos. 74 and 75 on 30.09.2025 and 03.10.2025, however, no certificate was issued with reference to TRY 76. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

¶30

When the matter was posted, along with the writ petition, the petitioner has enclosed a letter addressed to the second respondent in respect of package Nos.TRY 74, TRY 75 and TRY 76 and the date has been altered by pen as 22.09.2025. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that no application was received for TRY 76. Therefore, this Court had directed the respondents to produce the originals received from the petitioner with reference to TRY 74, TRY 75, by order dated 23.10.2022.

¶31

3/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P(MD)No.28937 of 2025

¶34

Today i.e., 27.10.2025, when the matter was called, the original letter

¶35

was submitted on the side of the respondents and the said letter clearly pertains only to TRY 74 and TRY 75 and not TRY 76. The documents enclosed in the

¶36

typed set of papers therefore appears to have been subsequently added or is a created one. The writ petition revolves on the ground that although an application was made by the petitioner for TRY 74, 75 and 76, certificate was issued only in respect of TRY 74 and 75. However, considering the fact that no application was made for TRY 76, there is no fault on the part of the third respondent. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶37

27.10.2025

¶38

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes Rmk

¶39

¶40