Ss And Co. vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu

Facts

The appellant, SS and Co., represented by its Managing Partner, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the Divisional Engineers (H) of the Highways Department to issue a 'Work Site Inspection Certificate' and 'Working Condition of the Plant and Machineries Certificate'. These certificates were required to enable the appellant to participate in a tender for three scopes of work, with approximate values including GST ranging from Rs. 1200.90 lakhs to Rs. 1632.15 lakhs. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, finding that the appellant did not possess one of the required machineries as on the date of the initial inspection, which was an admitted fact. The appellant argued that assured ownership was sufficient, not physical possession at the time of inspection, as the machineries were purchased on 11.09.2025 and were on-road by the inspection date of 23.09.2025, and were in possession by the bid submission date of 30.09.2025. A second inspection on 29.09.2025 confirmed possession.

Held

The Court held that the timelines set out under the tender notice are sacrosanct and must be adhered to scrupulously. Clause 9 of the Tender Notice mandates that the tenderer should submit their application for inspection by 15.09.2025, and the certificates are to be received by 26.09.2025. The Court interpreted Clause 9 to mean that the tenderer must be in complete readiness with all equipment as of the date of submission of the application for inspection. The appellant admittedly did not have physical possession of the machineries on 15.09.2025 when they made the application. The Court found this situation incongruous and the application meaningless. The mere purchase of machineries, even if they were on-road or in possession by the bid submission date, did not suffice to entitle them to participate in the tender if they failed to meet the eligibility criteria at the application stage. The Court found no contradiction between Clause 9 and Clause 2.5, stating they must be read harmoniously. The Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Odisha and others was cited to support the respondents' position, emphasizing that public tenders are instruments of governance for maximizing public value through fair, transparent, and competitive processes. The Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant's application for Work Site Inspection Certificate and Working Condition of Plant and Machineries Certificate was valid, considering the requirement of physical possession of machineries as per Clause 9 of the Tender Notice and Clause 2.5 of the Pre-Qualification Document. 2. Whether the purchase of machineries on 11.09.2025 and their subsequent on-road status by 23.09.2025, with physical possession by 30.09.2025, constituted substantial compliance with the tender conditions, despite not having physical possession on the application date of 15.09.2025. Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant contended that Clause 2.5 of the Pre-Qualification Document requires only assured ownership and demonstration of availability based on known commitment, not physical possession at the time of inspection. They argued that the machineries were purchased on 11.09.2025 and were on-road by the inspection date of 23.09.2025, and in possession by the bid submission date of 30.09.2025, constituting substantial compliance. They also highlighted a second inspection on 29.09.2025 that confirmed possession. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment, but their stance, as reflected in the dismissal of the writ petition and the court's reasoning, was that strict adherence to the timelines and possession requirements of the tender notice was necessary. The court relied on the principle that tender timelines are sacrosanct and expected to be adhered to scrupulously.