P.AnnaduraiSon of Pachaiappa Gounder25 v. P.BaskaranS/o Pachaiappan
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and W
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. However, what has transpired is that, by relying upon the order of this Court, the contract has been awarded to the writ petitioner. What has not been brought to the notice of this Court is the fact that the writ petitioner’s bid had been…
Judgment
REV.APLW No. 53 of 2026__________Page1 of 5IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11-03-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHAREV.APLW No. 53 of 2026ANDWMP NO. 10149 & 10150 of 2026P.AnnaduraiSon of Pachaiappa Gounder25A Kaliappa Gounder St.,Dharmapuri...Petitioner(s)Vs1.P.BaskaranS/o Pachaiappan, Engineering Contractor, No 41/2, 1st Cross Street, Nedumaran Nagar, Dharmapuri.
The State of Tamil NaduRep by its Secretary, Highways Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
The Superintendent EngineerHighways Department, Construction Maintenance, Steel Plant Road, Jahirammapalayam, Salem 636 3024.The Tender Scrutiny CommitteeHighways Department, Steel Plant Road, Jahirammapalayam, Salem 636 302...Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW No. 53 of 2026__________Page2 of 5Prayer: Review Petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1, r/w. 114 of C.P.C to review the final order dated 18.02.2026 in W.P.No.6338 of 2026.For Petitioner: Mr.Sharath ChandranFor Respondents: Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counselfor Mr.Aswin Prasanna for R1Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, Additional Advocate GeneralAssisted by Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, Additional Government Pleader for R2 to R4ORDER Seeking to review the order passed in W.P.No.6338 of 2026, the petitioner has filed the present review petition as a third party.2. The review petition has been filed on the ground that the review petitioner, who was the successful bidder, had not been impleaded as a party to the writ petition and there has been total suppression on the part of the writ petitioner as well the respondents. 3. The writ petition had been filed to quash the Tender Summary Report dated 13.02.2026, which was communicated to the petitioner on 14.02.2026, and to direct the 2nd respondent to award the tender in his favour. It was represented before this Court that, after confirmation of the writ petitioner’s https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW No. 53 of 2026__________Page3 of 5technical bid and he being the lowest bidder, his bid had been rejected without any reason. Therefore, this Court, taking note of the letter dated 13.02.2026 issued by the Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Salem wherein it was stated that the work experience certificate issued by the writ petitioner was genuine and had been verified on the basis of the records available in his office and without going into the merits of the case, had directed the 3rd respondent to consider the writ petitioner’s financial bid.
Operative part
However, what has transpired is that, by relying upon the order of this Court, the contract has been awarded to the writ petitioner. What has not been brought to the notice of this Court is the fact that the writ petitioner’s bid had been rejected twice, whereas the review petitioner’s bid had been accepted on both occasions, and the Tender Scrutiny Committee, by its Minutes dated 13.02.2024, had declared the review petitioner as L1 and recommended him to the competent authority. A communication to this effect was also sent by the Superintending Engineer, Highways Circle, to the Chief Engineer recommending award of the tender in favour of the review petitioner. These facts were not brought to the notice of this Court, as is evident from a reading of the order. That apart, the successful bidder had not been made a party to the proceedings. Had the review petitioner been impleaded, these facts would have been brought to the notice of this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW No. 53 of 2026__________Page4 of 55. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made out to review the order passed in W.P.No.6338 of 2026. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and W.P.No.6338 of 2026 is restored to file. The writ petition shall be posted before the learned Judge concerned as per the roster. In the meanwhile, the contract awarded pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition shall be kept in abeyance till the writ is taken up for hearing. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.11-03-2026SRNTo:1.The Secretary, State of Tamil NaduHighways Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Superintendent EngineerHighways Department, Construction Maintenance, Steel Plant Road, Jahirammapalayam, Salem 636 3023.The Tender Scrutiny CommitteeHighways Department, Steel Plant Road, Jahirammapalayam, Salem 636 302. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW No. 53 of 2026__________Page5 of 5P.T.ASHA J.SRNREV.APLW No. 53 of 2026ANDWMP NO. 10149 OF 2026,WMP NO. 10150 OF 202611-03-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and W
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.