Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

S.P. Natarajan and Etc. Vs. Chief Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Deptt. and anr.

S.P. Natarajan and Etc. vs Chief Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Deptt. and anr.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Chennai Decided Feb 12, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/809151

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Appeal Nos. 202 and 203 of 1999 and C.M.P. No. 2270 of 1999
Subject
Constitution
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Constitution
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections
Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 2; Constitution of India - Article 14

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S.P. Natarajan and Etc.

Advocate C. Godwin, Adv.

Respondent

Chief Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Deptt. and anr.

Legal References

Acts
Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 2; Constitution of India - Article 14
Reported In
AIR1999Mad458

Excerpt

- n.k. jain, ag. c.j.1. these two writ appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common order of the learned single judge dated 14-10-1998 dismissing the writ petitions.2. the grievance of the petitioners is that theyare registered class i contractors of highways and rural works department the pre-qualification conditions prescribed by the respondents for participating in the bid in respect of west coast road tender, viz., widening and strengthening the existing carriage way of west coast road to two lane including c.d. works from kanyakumari district to pazhaya utchakadai are intended only to eliminate other contractors and grant the contract to their own party men and it is arbitrary.3. the learned single judge on consideration, held that the said pre-qualifications have been introduced only in terms of government order in ms. h.c no. 2086 dated 25-10-1989. under the said government order, where there is any work costing more than a crore of rupees, there should be a condition of pre-qualification in respect of contract and only on satisfying those pre-conditions, the contractor would be allowed to take part in the tender proceedings. the learned single judge has also observed that the petitioners/ appellants have not registered their names in terms of an advertisement in the indian express and as such, they are not entitled to be considered to take part in the tender proceedings and as such, it cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the government. the learned single judge thus dismissed the writ petitions.4. we have heard and persued the records. we find no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned single judge, so as to call for interference. the writ appeals arc dismissed. cmp 2270/ 99 is also dismissed.

Full Judgment

N.K. Jain, Ag. C.J.

1. These two writ appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 14-10-1998 dismissing the Writ Petitions.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that theyare registered class I contractors of Highways and Rural Works Department The pre-qualification conditions prescribed by the respondents for participating in the bid in respect of west coast road tender, viz., widening and strengthening the existing carriage way of west Coast Road to two lane including C.D. works from Kanyakumari District to Pazhaya Utchakadai are intended only to eliminate other contractors and grant the contract to their own party men and it is arbitrary.

3. The learned single Judge on consideration, held that the said pre-qualifications have been introduced only in terms of Government Order in Ms. H.C No. 2086 dated 25-10-1989. Under the said Government order, where there is any work costing more than a crore of rupees, there should be a condition of pre-qualification in respect of contract and only on satisfying those pre-conditions, the contractor would be allowed to take part in the tender proceedings. The learned single Judge has also observed that the petitioners/ appellants have not registered their names in terms of an advertisement in the Indian Express and as such, they are not entitled to be considered to take part in the tender proceedings and as such, it cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the Government. The learned single Judge thus dismissed the writ petitions.

4. We have heard and persued the records. We find no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge, so as to call for interference. The writ appeals arc dismissed. CMP 2270/ 99 is also dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial