Dismissed¶41

M/s.Vasanth Electricals, v. The Superintending Engineer

Madras HC2 Jun 2026WA(MD)/757/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench, Madras High Court, WA(MD)No.757 of 2026 (Vasanth Electricals v. Superintending Engineer, PWD, Thanjavur and others): maintainability of writ petition against rejection of technical bid; effective alternative remedy under Section 11, Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998; non-annexature of five-year experience certificate for lift and generator works; Form 'F' Inspector of Lifts certificate held insufficient; tender eligibility conditions for Class IV PWD electrical contractor (works above Rs. 50 lakhs up to Rs. 2 crores); Tender Notice No. 87/2025-2026; Clause 15 Letters Patent; writ appeal dismissed, no costs; connected CMP(MD)No.6275 of 2026 closed.

What did the court decide?

None; the Writ Appeal was dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP(MD)No.6275 of 2026) was closed. ¶41

M/s.Vasanth Electricals, Vs The Superintending Engineer — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Writ Appeal was dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP(MD)No.6275 of 2026) was closed.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the appellant's technical bid under Tender Notice No. 87/2025-2026 was arbitrary, the appellant contending that the experience certificate was annexed with the tender documents but not considered. +2 more

¶29

Court's answer

No infirmity was found in the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition; the challenge to the rejection of the technical bid accordingly fails.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Under the tender conditions, the electrical contractor must be a Class IV contractor registered with the Public Works Department (for works above Rs. 50 lakhs up to Rs. 2 crores and above), possess a valid Electricity Board licence, and either be an authorised manufacturer or hold authorisation from a manufacturer, or have five years' experience in similar specialised works.

¶35

Key takeaways

Merely on the basis of an experience certificate issued in Form 'F' by the Inspector of Lifts, Government of Tamil Nadu, the appellant cannot take advantage of the same in lieu of the certificate stipulated in the tender document.ratio¶35
The appellant did not annex the experience certificate as stipulated in the tender documents; a bidder who has not done so cannot, as of right, challenge the tender process.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against dismissal of W.P.(MD)No.7880 of 2026, wherein the appellant (M/s.Vasanth Electricals) challenged the rejection of its technical bid under Tender Notice No. 87/2025-2026 (internal and external electrification, including lift and generator arrangements, for a 100-student MBC College Girls' Hostel at Orathanadu, Thanjavur) on the ground of non-upload of a five-year experience certificate for lift and generator facilities. Held (Division Bench, judgment by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.): (i) the tender conditions required a Class IV contractor registered with the PWD (works above Rs. 50 lakhs up to Rs. 2 crores and above) with a valid Electricity Board licence and either manufacturer authorisation or five years' experience in similar specialised works, with the prescribed certificate to be annexed; (ii) a Form 'F' certificate issued by the Inspector of Lifts, Government of Tamil Nadu, could not be availed of in lieu of the stipulated certificate, and a bidder who has not annexed the certificate as stipulated cannot, as of right, challenge the process; (iii) the appellant had an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and without availing it the writ petition was not maintainable; (iv) no infirmity in the learned Single Judge's order. Writ Appeal dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed (02.06.2026).

¶1

WA(MD)No.757 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 02.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

WA(MD)No.757 of 2026 and CMP(MD)No.6275 of 2026

¶7

M/s.Vasanth Electricals Rep. by its Sole Proprietor M. Manikandan, 31A, Anna Nagar, Subramaniyapuram, Trichy - 620 020.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Buildings (Construction and Maintenance) Circle, Thanjavur.

¶11

Sivam Electricals, Rep. by its Sole Proprietor, S.Bala, No.4, Abdul Wahab Nagar, Reddipalayam Road, Thanjavur.

¶12

Desigan, No.23, Muthu Meenakshi Nagar, Reddipalayam Road,

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

WA(MD)No.757 of 2026

¶16

Tanjavur - 613009.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER :- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.(MD)No.7880 of 2026 dated 07.04.2026.

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For R1 : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.M.P.Senthil, Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶22

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order made in W.P. (MD)No.7880 of 2026 dated 07.04.2025.

¶23

The appellant / writ petitioner challenged the rejection of its bid

¶24

by the 1^st respondent vide proceedings dated 17.03.2026, in respect of the work covered under Tender Notice No. 87/2025–2026. It is the case of the appellant that the 1^st respondent invited bids for providing internal and external electrification, including lift and generator arrangements for the construction of a 100-student MBC College Girls’ Hostel building at Orathanadu, Thanjavur District. The appellant submitted its technical

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

WA(MD)No.757 of 2026

¶28

bid which was rejected on the ground that the appellant had not uploaded a five-year experience certificate specifically relating to lift and generator facilities. The rejection was challenged mainly on the ground that the rejection is arbitrary and 5 years experience certificate was also annexed with the tender documents. However, the learned Single Judge considering the fact that the said certificate has not been annexed, dismissed the writ petition.

¶29

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the experience certificate has been annexed with the tender document which has not been considered. According to the learned counsel, the appellant have got experience in the same field and despite the certificate issued in this regard, the technical bid has been rejected. The reason has been assigned only in the latter order. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the rejection is arbitrary.

¶30

We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and

¶31

perused the entire materials available on record.

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

WA(MD)No.757 of 2026

¶35

The so-called experience certificate relied upon by the petitioner relates to the certificate issued by the authorities to Chief Civil Surgeon Medical Officer and the Dean concerned of the Hospital where the electrical work was carried out. The tender document condition clearly shows that the electrical contractor must be a Class IV contractor registered with the Public Works Department (for works above Rs. 50 lakhs up to Rs. 2 crores and above), possess a valid Electricity Board licence, and either be an authorised manufacturer or hold authorisation from a manufacturer, or have five years’ experience in similar specialised works. The said certificate ought to have been annexed as stipulated in the tender document. Merely on the basis of some experience certificate issued in Form 'F' by the Inspector of Lifts, Government of Tamil Nadu, the appellant cannot take advantage of the same. When the appellant has not annexed the experience certificate as stipulated in the tender documents, as a matter of right, they cannot challenge the process. That apart, the appellant has effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. Without availing the effective alternative remedy, as a matter of right, the

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

WA(MD)No.757 of 2026

¶39

writ petition cannot be filed and it is not maintainable. Thus, we do not

¶40

find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶41