Disposed

Sea Rock Infrastructure v. The Chief Engineer

Madras HC29 Jan 2026WA/3986/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals challenged the Single Judge's dismissal as premature of writ petitions against rejection of tenders. During pendency, reasons for rejection were communicated. The Division Bench declined to keep the appeals pending, noting the alternative statutory appeal under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and disposed of them with liberty to file statutory appeals.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to appellants to file statutory appeals within ten days without limitation objections; interim order continued for ten days or until filing of appeals.

Sea Rock Infrastructure Vs The Chief Engineer — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.A.Nos.3986 and 3987 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 29.01.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

W.A.Nos.3986 and 3987 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.32353 and 32354 of 2025

¶8

W.A.No.3986 of 2025:

¶9

M/s.Sea Rock Infrastructure Rep by its Partner, Gokul Sekar, No.12, Sheik Dawood Street, Erode-638 001.

¶10

Appellant

¶11

¶12

1.The Chief Engineer Fishing Harbour Project Circle, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department, Integrated Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Building, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶13

2.M/s.SRM Construction

¶14

Rep. by its Partner B. Pravesh Krishna, No.9/450 Kaspapettai, M.S.Mangalam Village, Aval Poondurai, Erode - 638 115.

¶15

(R2 impleaded vide order dated 10.09.2025 made in WMP No.37656/2025 in WP No.32269/2025)

¶16

Respondents

¶17

_______________ Page 1 of 6_

¶18

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

¶19

W.A.Nos.3986 and 3987 of 2025

¶20

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32269 of 2025 dated 20.11.2025.

¶21

For Appellant: Mr.T.K.Bhaskar

¶22

For Respondents: Mr.P.S.Raman Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader for respondent No.1

¶23

Mr. V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail for respondent No.2

¶24

W.A.No.3987 of 2025:

¶25

Sri Pathy Associates Private Limited Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Subamaniam Sekar, No.62, Thangaperumal Street, Erode – 638 001.

¶26

Appellant

¶27

¶28

1.The Chief Engineer Fishing Harbour Project Circle, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department, Integrated Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Building, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶29

_______________ Page 2 of 6_

¶30

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

¶31

W.A.Nos.3986 and 3987 of 2025

¶32

2.M/s.SRM Construction

¶33

Rep. by its Partner B.Pravesh Krishna, No.9/450 Kaspapettai, M.S.Mangalam Village, Aval Poondurai, Erode - 638 115. (R2 impleaded vide order dated 10.09.2025 made in WMP No.38074/2025 in WP No.31434/2025)

¶34

Respondents

¶35

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31434 of 2025 dated 20.11.2025.

¶36

For Appellant: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mr.T.K.Bhaskar

¶37

For Respondents: Mr.P.S.Raman Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader for respondent No.1

¶38

Mr. V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail for respondent No.2

¶39

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶40

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

Page 3 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

W.A.Nos.3986 and 3987 of 2025

¶45

These appeals are preferred against the common order dated

¶46

20.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the matter of challenge to the rejection of tender.

¶47

It appears that even before communication of the reason for

¶48

rejection of tenders submitted by the writ petitioners, writ petitions were filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions as premature. During the pendency of the present appeals, reasons have been communicated to the appellants.

¶49

Though number of grounds have been urged before us to assail the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the reasons communicated to the appellants, taking into consideration that there exists an alternative remedy of statutory appeal, we are not inclined to keep these appeals pending, but dispose of the same, with liberty to the appellants to avail the alternative remedy of statutory appeal.

¶50

Keeping in view the scheme of Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu

¶51

Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, in case the appellants file statutory

¶52

Page 4 of 6

¶53

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

¶54

W.A.Nos.3986 and 3987 of 2025

¶55

appeals within a period of ten days from today, the appeals shall be heard without going into any objection to limitation. The appellants are at liberty to take all such grounds, as may be available under the law.

¶56

Taking into consideration that an interim order was passed by this Court, the interim order shall continue for a period of ten days or till the date of filing of appeals, whichever is earlier.

¶57

The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶58

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 29.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr

¶59

To: The Chief Engineer Fishing Harbour Project Circle, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department, Integrated Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Building, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶60

Page 5 of 6

¶61

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

¶62

W.A.Nos.3986 and 3987 of 2025

¶63

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

¶64

bbr

¶65

W.A.Nos.3986 and 3987 of 2025

¶66

29.01.2026

¶67

_______________ Page 6 of 6_

¶68

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

Sea Rock Infrastructure v. The Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sea Rock Infrastructure v. The Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mj Sankar Vs Chief Commissioner

Saikannan Vs Vaiyapurishankar

Vijayaraghavalu Chetty Trust and Narasammal Estate Vs K.J.Renuka

A. Vijayakumar Vs The Secretary to Government

Tea Board of India Vs M/S.Kodanand Estate

M/s. Accord Distillers and Brewers Pvt.Ltd., Vs Joint Director