(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the impugned rejection of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 06.02.2026 in Tender ID No.2026_PWD_647584_2, Tender Ref.No.75/2025-2026, pertaining to the work of “Construction of 12 Class Room Building in Government Higher Secondary School at Poondi in Thanjavur District under NABARD RIDF XXXI” and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to open the financial bid of the petitioner and proceed further as per the tender conditions.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent wherein the petitioner's technical bid was rejected by the Tender Inviting Authority pertaining to the work for construction of 12 Class Room Building in Government Higher Secondary School at Poondi in Thanjavur District.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a registered Civil Engineering Contractor possessing substantial work experience with Public Works Department (Buildings and Maintenance, Water Resources Department), Forest Department and various private civil construction projects.

3. The first respondent has issued an e-Tender notification dated 20.01.2026 inviting bids for the work in Government Higher Secondary School at Poondi in Thanjavur District under NABARD RIDF XXXI. The deadline for submission of bids was fixed on 05.02.2026 up to 3.00 p.m and the technical bids were scheduled to be opened on 06.02.2026 at 3.00 p.m.

4. As per tender condition, a Site Visit Certificate is required to be issued by the respondents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had inspected the work site well in advance and repeatedly sought issuance of the said certificate from the concerned authorities and he has also sent representation on 30.01.2026. However, he had personally visited the office of the second respondent on 04.02.2026 for the specific purpose of obtaining the Site Visit Certificate. He was informed that the second respondent was unavailable. Therefore, he was not in a position to obtain a certificate or any clarification despite his bona fide efforts.

(B). Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had addressed a letter on 05.02.2026 to the respondent along with self-declaration to the effect that he had visited the work site. However, the respondents failed and neglected to furnish the Site Visit Certificate prior to the submission of the deadline. The petitioner had further submitted his bid through Tamil Nadu e-Procurement portal on 05.02.2026 after remitting the prescribed EMD along with essential eligibility requirements.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that a letter dated 03.02.2026 has been purportedly issued by the second respondent's office. However, the letter was received by the petitioner only in the evening of 06.02.2026 after the deadline of the submission has already expired. According to him, the non-issuance of the Site Visit Certificate and timings of the discharge of the letter dated 03.02.2026 would clearly establish that with malafide, the officials are acted in order to favour some other persons. On 06.02.2026, at the time of opening of the technical bid, the petitioner's bid has been marked “Not Admitted” for the reason Site Visit Certificate issued by the competent authority is not enclosed.

7. According to the petitioner, the Site Visit Certificate has been issued only to some favourable persons for extraneous reasons with mala fide intentions, effectively creating a monopoly and stifling fair competition. He further stated that the non-furnishing of the Site Visit Certificate despite his best effort or beyond his control and due to the attitude on the part of the second respondent in order to favour certain persons. In such circumstance, the non-furnishing of the Site Visit Certificate should not be considered to be a disqualification for considering the technical bid of the writ petitioner. When the petitioner has already visited the site and he had enclosed photographs of the same, insisting for the Site Visit Certificate from concerned authority is only to create monopoly. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of the rejection of the technical bid and direct the respondents to open financial bid of the petitioner and proceed further.

8. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had first sent an application on 30.01.2026 through courier indicating that he is a professional contractor and the second application was addressed by him on 02.02.2026 again referring himself to be a professional civil engineering contractor and therefore, on 03.02.2026, a letter was addressed to the writ petitioner calling upon him to produce the records to show that he is a registered contractor of PWD. The said intimation was also sent by mail to the writ petitioner on the same day. Hence, the petitioner having not established that he is a registered contractor, for seeking a certificate of Site Visit Inspection, the authorities have called upon him to produce the said certificate. However, the petitioner having failed to do so, cannot now complaint about the officials.

9. The learned Additional Advocate General had further contended that all other tenderers who had sought for Site Visit Inspector Certificate have enclosed certificate to the effect that they are registered contractors of PWD. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that the authorities have acted in a malafide manner.

10. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records.

(C). Discussion:

11. The technical bid submitted by the writ petitioner on 05.02.2026 has been rejected by the first respondent on the sole ground that the petitioner has not enclosed a Site Visit Inspection Certificate to be issued by the second respondent.

12. The e-Tender notice published in Deccan Chronicle, Chennai Edition on 22.01.2026 clearly reveals that the tenders are invited from the eligible registered contractors of PWD. The tender notification dated 20.01.2026 reveals that e-Tenders are invited from the eligible registered contractors by the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D Buildings (C & M) Circle, Thanjavur -1. Therefore, the contractor who is registered in PWD could alone submit his bid for the above said tender notification.

13. As per special condition in the tender notification, the request of the Site Visit Certificate should reach the second respondent 4 days before the last date of tender receipt ie. on or before 01.02.2026. The certificate would be issued by the second respondent before 05.02.2026. Therefore, it is clear that the enclosure of the Site Visit Certificate along with tender documents is mandatory as per instruction to the tender in the tender document.

14. The petitioner herein had made an application to the second respondent on 30.01.2026 through courier seeking Site Visit Inspection Certificate. In the said request, it is mentioned that the petitioner is a professional contractor. A second application was addressed by the petitioner on 02.02.2026 enclosing the site visit photos. Even in the said application it is mentioned that the petitioner is a professional Civil Engineering Contractor. Having received the application dated 02.02.2026, the respondent officials on 03.02.2026 has addressed a communication to the petitioner requesting him to approach the office directly along with records to indicate that he is a registered PWD contractor so as to get his certificate for site inspection. This has been sent by a registered post on 04.02.2026 which the petitioner has received it on 06.02.2026 after the deadline had ended for submission of the tender document. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that with some malafide intention in order to favour some chosen persons, the second respondent has acted in a biased manner.

15. The letters addressed by the petitioner on 30.01.2026 and 02.02.2026 does not reveal that the petitioner is a contractor, registered with PWD. As pointed out supra, only if any request emanates from the registered contractors of PWD, the second respondent has to respond. However, they addressed a communication to the petitioner on 03.02.2026 calling upon him to visit office along with registration certificate as a contractor for issuance of Site Visit Inspection Certificate.

16. The learned Additional Advocate General brought to the notice of the Court that such a communication has been addressed to the petitioner through mail also on 03.02.2026. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had not received any mail from the second respondent on 03.02.2026 calling upon him to approach the office. Since the enclosure of the Site Visit Inspection Certificate is mandatory for considering the technical bid, the petitioner having not produced the same, the first respondent cannot be found fault with, for rejecting the technical bid of the writ petitioner.

17. The learned Additional Advocate General had brought to the notice of the Court that the other contractors while applying for Site Visit Inspection Certificate, have enclosed the certificate of their registration.

18. As cited supra, since the petitioner in his communication has not stated that he is a registered contractor, the respondent officials were constrained to issue a notice for calling upon him to approach them along with the document to prove that the petitioner is a registered contractor for getting a certificate of Site Visit Inspection. In such circumstance, the allegations made against the respondents cannot be countenanced.

(D). Conclusion:

19. In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.