M/S. VALAR & CO. Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (HIGHWAYS) NABARD AND RURAL CIRCLE OFFICE SALEM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Valar and Co directing the first respondent to receive and process the petitioner's tender for the works covered in respect of works viz., (i) construction of High level Bridge at km 8/4 of Tholasampatty Road; (ii) Construction of Bridge at km 0/8 of Vadakarai Vaaikkal-Narimedu Road; (iii) Reconstruction of Bridge at km of Jalagandapuram-Chinnappampatti Road to Vellalapuram and Akkaraipatti Road, under NABARD RIDF XXIII-Bridge Works-2017-2018 in Salem (H) NABARD and Rural Roads Division without insisting for Working Condition Certificate to be issued by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a first class registered contractor with the Highways Department of Government of Tamil Nadu. On 12/2/2018, a tender notification was issued by the Superintending Engineer (H) NABARD Salem bearing Tender Notice No.14/2017-2018/SDO/dtd. 12/2/2018 in respect of the aforementioned works. The said notification dtd. 12/2/2018 has imposed a condition that Working Condition Certificate should be obtained from the Divisional Engineer (Highways), Quality Control Division, Salem, second respondent herein and the same should be enclosed along with the application. In order to comply with the said condition, the petitioner made a representation on 14/3/2018, requesting the second respondent to inspect the petitioner's plant and also to issue a running condition certificate to the machineries for the purpose of making application to take part in the said tender. Whereas, the second respondent although received the said application on 14/3/2018, i.e., seven days before the date of expiry of the last date, till date has not come forward to issue the running condition certificate to the machineries. As a result, the petitioner has been deliberately kept out of the race, therefore, prays for appropriate direction.

(3.) After filing the counter affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking support from paragraph 5 therein, has submitted that first respondent has clearly admitted the case of the petitioner and only due to his busy schedule, he was unable to carry the inspection of various works, therefore, he was unable to issue the running condition certificate. The second respondent is duty bound to issue the running condition certificate to the machineries. In spite of having the benefit of seven clear days from the date of submitting the application on 14/3/2018, he has deliberately acted against the petitioner. Therefore, a direction can be issued to accept his application without the running condition certificate, as he has got all the machineries in running condition.