In a brief but notable hearing at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on October 3, 2025, Justice M. Dhandapani dismissed a writ petition filed by PRR Construction against officials of the Highways Department. The firm had sought a direction to issue certificates necessary to take part in a government tender for road works in Pudukkottai district.
Background
PRR Construction, represented by managing partner Ramalingam, is a Class-I contractor engaged in various government building and road projects. On September 15, 2025, the Superintending Engineer (Highways) in Trichy issued Tender Notice No. 32/2025-26/SDO, inviting applications for several NABARD-funded road works.
As per the tender rules, bidders had to produce two documents - a Work Site Inspection Certificate and a Working Condition of Plants and Machineries Certificate, both to be issued by the Divisional Engineer (Highways), Pudukkottai.
The petitioner applied for these certificates on September 25, 2025, but alleged that the Divisional Engineer failed to act on the request despite repeated follow-ups. Claiming that this delay denied them their “fundamental right to trade and business” under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the firm approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to issue the certificates or alternatively allow tender participation without them.
Court’s Observations
When the matter was taken up, Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan, assisted by Special Government Pleader C. Venkatesh Kumar, represented the State. The government side informed the court that the Divisional Engineer had already passed an order on October 3, 2025, rejecting the petitioner’s request for certificates.
Upon hearing this, the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. P. Ganapathi Subramanian, sought liberty to challenge that rejection order separately.
Justice Dhandapani noted that since the competent authority had already passed a decision, the court could not issue the direction sought in the current writ. “The appropriate remedy for the petitioner now lies in challenging the rejection order in the manner known to law,” the bench observed.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the fresh rejection order before the appropriate forum. The judge concluded succinctly:
“In view of the submissions made, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order dated 03.10.2025. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
With that, the matter was formally disposed of, marking yet another instance where the court emphasized procedural discipline in tender-related disputes rather than intervening directly in administrative decisions.
Case: PRR Construction vs The Superintending Engineer (Highways), NABARD and Rural Roads, Trichy & Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(MD) No. 27573 of 2025
Petitioner: PRR Construction, represented by Managing Partner Ramalingam
Respondents:
- The Superintending Engineer (Highways), NABARD and Rural Roads, Trichy
- The Divisional Engineer (Highways), NABARD and Rural Roads, Pudukkottai Division
Date of Judgment: October 3, 2025