VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2025 › High Court of Madras

Ganesh Lakshmi v. The Chief Engineer

DISMISSED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
18 December 2025
Bench
N. Sathish Kumarauthor
Case no.
WP 49804/2025

Follow Madras High CourtFollow N. Sathish Kumar

Judgment

ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent whereby rejecting the petitioner's contract application.

2.Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in order to participate in the tender called for by the 2nd respondent for the work of widening the intermediate lane into double lane and strengthening at km 4/4-8/0 of Muthur-Udayam-Vairamadai Road (SH) including CD works, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 08.12.2025 to the 3rd respondent to issue site inspection certificate and working condition of the plants and machinery certificate. However, the 3rd respondent vide impuged order dated 15.12.2025, rejected the petitioner's contract application on the ground that the petitioner does not have valid ownership for the Static Roller and the Central Hot Mix Plant was not in good condition.

4.Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the contractor must have valid ownership for all the plants and machineries mentioned by them. Since the petitioner does not have valid ownership for the Static Roller and also the Central Hot Mix Plant was not in good condition, his application was rejected.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on records.

6.Considering the submissions made by either parties, it is evident that though the petitioner bought the Static Roller in the year 2014 and according to them it works in good condition, admittedly, the petitioner failed to register the Static Roller and thus, the petitioner does not have the ownership of the Static Roller and without registration the Static Roller cannot be moved on road. Therefore, this Court does not find any merits in the present writ petition and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7.With the above observation, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18-12-2025 (2/2) rst Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To

1.The Chief Engineer Highways Department, Hrs Campus, No 76 Sardar Pattel Road Guindy, Chennai 600 025

2.The Superintending Engineer National Highways, Omalur Main Road, Narasothipatty Alagapuram Post, Salem 636 004

3.The Divisional Engineer National Highways, No 6 A.T.T. Colony V.O.C. Park Road, Coimbatore 641 018 WPoNo.o49804oofo2025 N.SATHISHoKUMARoJ. rst WPoNo.o49804oofo2025 ANDoWMPoNO.o55683oOFo2025 18-12-2025 (2/2)

Case details

Parties and counsel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND WMP NO. 55683 OF 2025 M/s.Ganesh Lakshmi, Construction India (P) Ltd., Rep By Its Director R. Veerakumar, No.95, Saliyankattupallam, Muthur Post, Kangayam Taluk, Tiruppur District 638 105. Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Chief Engineer, Highways Department, HRS Campus, No 76 Sardar Pattel Road Guindy, Chennai 600 025. 2.The Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Omalur Main Road, Narasothipatty Alagapuram Post, Salem 636 004. 3.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, No.6 A.T.T. Colony V.O.C. Park Road, Coimbatore 641 018. Respondent(s) PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relevant to the impugned order of rejection order in Lr. No CRIF / 2025- 26 / JDO dated 15.12.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and thereby direct the 3rd respondent to issue work site inspection Certificate and working condition of the Plants and Machinery Certificate to the petitioner. For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Palanisamy For Respondent: Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan Additional Government Pleader

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.