Judgment :- Srinivasan, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition in limine. The prayer in the writ petition is for issue of a mandamus directing the respondents to furnish tender documents pertaining to Press Notice/Engg.RO/32(10) 94-95, dated 26. 1994 comprising five items of work to the petitioner. The said press notice invited sealed percentage rate tenders for the works specified therein. It is not necessary to give the details of the items of work mentioned therein. But, it should be pointed out that each item is described as ‘ARMO Civil Works’ at the places mentioned therein. For example, Item No.1 refers to ARMO Civil Works at FSD Harbour of Madras for 1994-95. It comprises of two parts. The first for providing and fixing polycoated ‘J’ Bolts in the roof of E4 Godown, while the second relates to painting to Roof trusses and puttis at E1 Godown. Item 3 refers to ARMO Civil Works at FSD Arakkonam for 1994-95 comprising of repairs to Service roads.Item 5 refers to ARMO Civil Works at FSD Avadi for 1994-95 comprising certain repairs as mentioned therein and also water proofing treatment to AC valley gutters. The notice mentions the cost of tender documents as Rs.106 for each of the works. It is also stated that detailed terms and conditions for issue of tender documents may be obtained/ sent from the office of the Deputy Manager (Civil Engg), Food Corporation of India, 5/54 Greams Road, Madras-6. The last date of sale of tender documents was upto 4.00 p.m. on 7. 1994 and the date of receipt of tender documents is upto 3.00 p.m. on 7. 1994 on which date the tenders would be opened at 3.30 p.m. 2. The petitioner sent a letter dated 26. 1994 to the Deputy Manager (Civil Engg), Food Corporation of India, requesting him to send the tender schedule for the work mentioned therein. He enclosed a demand draft for Rs.928 towards the cost of tender Schedules as stated in the press notice plus transmission charges of Rs.80. In the letter he has stated that he had recently painted TNEB Administrative buildings, NPKRR Maligai, Madras-2 and the value of the work is Rs.10,00,000. The experience certificate was enclosed. Among the enclosures to the letter are found current income-tax clearance certificate (latest), P.W.D. & Highways registration copy and performance certificate of State and Central Department. 3. In the letter he has stated that he had recently painted TNEB Administrative buildings, NPKRR Maligai, Madras-2 and the value of the work is Rs.10,00,000. The experience certificate was enclosed. Among the enclosures to the letter are found current income-tax clearance certificate (latest), P.W.D. & Highways registration copy and performance certificate of State and Central Department. 3. There was no response to the said letter. The petitioner issued a notice through his lawyer on 26. 1994 calling upon the respondents to furnish the tender documents forthwith and informing them that in case of failure, he would move the writ court to stop the further proceedings. As there was no response, the petitioner filed the writ petition on 4th July, 1994. Notice of Motion was ordered by admission court returnable on the next day (7. 1994). The respondents entered appearance and filed a preliminary counter-affidavit bearing the date 7. 1994. The matter was heard immediately and the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 7. 1994 holding that no mandamus could be issued as prayed for by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents proceeded to open the tender according to the time schedule mentioned in the Press notice and further action was taken. The work was entrusted to the successful tenderer and according to the affidavit, filed by the respondents in this appeal, the work had commenced and substantial progress had been made. 4. In this writ appeal it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the matter has become infructuous in view of the subsequent developments and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the relief of mandamus cannot be granted to the petitioner, this Court has to consider whether the finding arrived at by the learned single Judge is correct on the facts of the case as such a finding affects the rights of the petitioner considerably and will also put him in jeopardy in future whenever he seeks to take part in any future tenders. On that footing, learned counsel has taken us through the relevant documents and pointed out that the respondents have erroneously refused to furnish tender documents to the petitioner. On that footing, learned counsel has taken us through the relevant documents and pointed out that the respondents have erroneously refused to furnish tender documents to the petitioner. In fact, the contention of learned counsel is that such refusal is on account of mala fide motives on the part of the officials of the respondents and in any event, they are guilty of gross negligence is not taking note of the documents enclosed by him with his letter dated 26. 1994 requesting them to send the tender schedules. 5. We find that there is considerable force in the said argument and it is necessary to consider the question whether the petitioner was eligible to seek tender documents from the respondents and whether their refusal to furnish him with such documents is proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. On our request, learned counsel for the respondents has placed before us the documents sent by the petitioner to the respondents along with his letter dated 26. 1994 in order to prove his eligibility to participate in the tender. The contention of the respondents is that the documents sent by the petitioner were only sufficient to prove if at all that he had experience in the matter of carrying out pending works and none of the documents washelpful to find out whether he had done any civil works. Our attention is drawn by the respondents to the relevant terms and conditions which are found in Circular No.16/1990 dated August 24, 1990, relating to tendering system in respect of engineering works. The relevant part of it reads as follows: “The instructions issued earlier through the above reference on the cited subject were reviewed in the context of the latest guidelines prescribed in the CPWD Manual for the registration of contractors for various classes under the categories of (i) Buildings and Roads (I) Electrical Works and it has been decided that the following guidelines will be followed by the FCI for the purpose of issue of tender documents to the indenting tenderers for Buildings and Roads and Electrical Works: I. BUILDING AND ROAD WORKS (i)...... (ii For works upto 2,25,000 Equivalent to Class IV B & RCPWD. The firm should have satisfactorily, completed atleast three works of not less than Rs.30,000 each during the last five years.” It is the above condition on which reliance is placed by the respondents. (ii For works upto 2,25,000 Equivalent to Class IV B & RCPWD. The firm should have satisfactorily, completed atleast three works of not less than Rs.30,000 each during the last five years.” It is the above condition on which reliance is placed by the respondents. According to them, the petitioner had not proved before them that he had satisfactorily completed at least three works of not less than Rs.30,000 each during the previous five years. That stand was taken by the respondents in the preliminary counter-affidavit filed by them in the writ petition. Paragraph 6 of the said counter-affidavit reads thus: “The terms and conditions for issue of tender documents inter alia require that the applicant should have satisfactorily completed at least these works of not less than Rs.30,000 each during the previous five years and documentary evidence in that regard should be produced by the applicant. The petitioner firm in the instant case had a requisition by post for issue of tender documents for the works vide its letter dated 26. 1994 and had enclosed therewith certificates from authorities stating that the petitioner-firm had been entrusted with painting works by these authorities and that the petitioner had completed such painting works. It is pertinent to point out here that the works advertised in the press notice relates to civil works, which include mainly among other things repairs to surface/storm water drains, repairs to floors, valley gutters and rain water pipes, A.C. sheets/G.I. sheets roofing and replacement of G.I. sheets, and allied works required for preservation of valuable foodgrains for supply in Public Distribution System etc. The petitioner firm had not furnished to the Food Corporation of India any documentary evidence of having completed any such civil works described above other than the pointing works done by the firm which alone cannot be considered as conclusive proof of the requisite work experience of the petitioner firm to be entrusted with the civil works. In these circumstances, as the petitioner firm has not completely satisfied all the requisite terms and conditions, it is not entitled to the supply of the tender documents.” 6. In these circumstances, as the petitioner firm has not completely satisfied all the requisite terms and conditions, it is not entitled to the supply of the tender documents.” 6. The learned single Judge, after referring to the said contention raised by the respondents and to the contents of the said counter-affidavit observed that the petitioner had not filed a reply affidavit denying the contents of the counter-affidavit and, therefore, there was no scope for granting the prayer of the petitioner. In fact, the learned Judge has referred to the absence of a reply affidavit in more than one place in his order. In paragraph 3 of his order, the learned Judge has stated, “As against these allegations in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner has not made any request for filing any reply affidavit. So, it is clear that the terms and conditions for issue of the abovesaid tender documents, inter alia, require that any applicant seeking tender documents should have satisfactorily completed at least three works of not less than Rs.30,000 each during the previous five years and documentary evidence in that regard should be produced by such an applicant. Later the counter-affidavit also states that the” petitioner had not furnished to the respondents the abovesaid documentary evidence. Further according to the said counter-affidavit the petitioner has only submitted documents relating to painting works done by it and not any civil work. The counter-affidavit also points out that the work advertised in the press notice relates to civil work and any certificates relating to paining work alone would not be relevant for the petitioner getting the tender documents. In the light of the abovesaid counter-affidavit to which there is no reply affidavit, as stated above there is no scope at all for granting the mandamus prayed for.“ Again in paragraph 4, which is the last paragraph of the order, the learned Judge has reiterated that position. Before doing so, the learned Judge referred to another contention of the respondents that with reference to earlier advertisement of 1993, when tender documents were refused to the petitioner on justifiable grounds, he chose to file a suit O.S.No.3216 of 1993 on the file of the City Civil Court and sought to obtain a direction from that court and that the court refused to grant the same. After referring to the said aspect of the matter, the learned Judge observed. After referring to the said aspect of the matter, the learned Judge observed. ”Anyway, even not taking into account what has happened in the abovesaid suit with reference to the earlier 1993 advertisement, the fact remains that the petitioner has not chosen to deny the averments in the counter-affidavit now filed, particularly those averments which were referred to by me earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not even make a request for filing a reply affidavit. In the above circumstances, no mandamus could be granted as prayed for and accordingly the petition is not admitted, but dismissed.“ 7. At the outset, we must point out that the view expressed by the learned Judge that in the absence of a reply affidavit by the petitioner, the contents of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents should be accepted in toto by the court is not in accord with the settled principles of law. The question has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court with reference to the filing of a reply statement in a suit in Veerasekara v. Amirthavalli Animal, A.I.R. 1975 Mad. 51. The Bench held that the law does not compel a plaintiff to file a rejoinder to a written statement and failure on his part to file a reply statement would not place him in a disadvantage. We have followed that judgment in Gita alias Gita Devi v. Mary Jenet James alias M.J.James and others, O.S.A.Nos.128, 129, 255 and 256 of 1994, dated 111. 1994. The principle will certainly apply to reply affidavits also in writ petitions. The mere fact that a reply affidavit is not filed in a writ petition contesting the averments made in the counter-affidavit will not preclude him from establishing before the court through the relevant records that the statements in the counter-affidavit are not correct. 8.” Apart from that, the facts of the case are relevant in this connection. When the writ petition came up for admission, notice of motion was ordered return- able on the very next day. That happened to be 7. 1994. On that day, a preliminary counter-affidavit is served on the petitioner and the matter was heard immediately by court. As the last date for opening the tender had already been fixed as 7. 1994, the respondents would not have certainly agreed for postponing the hearing of the matter. That happened to be 7. 1994. On that day, a preliminary counter-affidavit is served on the petitioner and the matter was heard immediately by court. As the last date for opening the tender had already been fixed as 7. 1994, the respondents would not have certainly agreed for postponing the hearing of the matter. The petitioner was, therefore, obliged to argue the matter without making a prayer for adjournment to file a reply affidavit. Moreover, the counter-affidavit itself is only a preliminary counter-affidavit and the respondents had stated therein that they reserve their right to deal with each and every allegation made in the petitioner’s affidavit separately in a detailed counter-affidavit which may be necessary to be filed later. In fact, the respondents had not dealt with a particular allegation made specifically by the petitioner in his affidavit in paragraph 4 that the officials of the respondents insisted upon the petitioner’s withdrawing the civil suit as a condition precedent for their furnishing tender schedules to him. When we pointed out this lapse on the part of the respondents to their counsel he replied that the respondents had to file a preliminary counter-affidavit urgently and they could not deal with all the allegations made in the petitioner’s affidavit. Thus, none of the parties could be blamed for not filing either a detailed counter-affidavit or a reply affidavit. The court chose to hear the writ petition immediately after the respondents entered appearance and such hearing could only have been on the basis of the relevant documents in addition to the affidavits filed by the parties. It was the duty of the respondents to have placed all the relevant documents before court in order to substantiate their stand that the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the tender. Accordingly to the respondents’ counsel, they were ready to produce the documents before the court. Whether it is true or not, the fact remains that the court had not made any reference to those documents. The court proceeded to hold against the petitioner on the only ground that the averments made in the preliminary counter-affidavit were not controverted by a reply affidavit by the petitioner. Such a procedure has undoubtedly caused grave prejudice to the petitioner, as will be evident from the facts set out hereunder. .9. The court proceeded to hold against the petitioner on the only ground that the averments made in the preliminary counter-affidavit were not controverted by a reply affidavit by the petitioner. Such a procedure has undoubtedly caused grave prejudice to the petitioner, as will be evident from the facts set out hereunder. .9. Learned counsel for the respondents was fair enough to produce all the documents sent by the petitioner to them along with the letter dated 26. 1994. Though according to him all those documents related only to the petitioner’s carrying out painting works, we are unable to accept the said contention. We find from those documents that five of them prove that the petitioner had carried out civil works as interpreted by the respondents other than painting works of a value higher than that prescribed by the respondents. The first documents is a certificate issued by the Chief General Manager, Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited on 29. 1991. That shows that the petitioner had a contract for painting and other maintenance work for the year 1990-91 for an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs and he had completed the work on schedule and the quality of the workmanship was very good and commendable. It was further stated that the work was done to the utmost satisfaction of the said company. The next document is a certificate issued by the Divisional Engineer, Highways and Research Wing, Vellore-9. That shows that the petitioner had executed improvements to Annicut Odugathur Forest road to Serpadi (via) Muthukumararnmalai KM O/e - 7/660. The total value of the work on completion was Rs.18,85, 125. The agreement was dated 20.7.1992. The work was completed on 212. 1993. Learned counsel for the respondents had to concede that the certificate related to civil work as required by the terms and conditions. The third document is a certificate issued by the Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Madras20, dated 12. 1994, which proves that the petitioner had carried out anti-corrosive treatment for steel reinforcement relating to special repairs to the Bridge at KM 17/2 of NH.5 during the year 1991-92 for a value of Rs.2.30 lakhs. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that it related only to painting. The fourth document related to laying of plastic felts over the roof. That certificate was issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D. North West sub-division, Chepauk, Madras on 3. 1994. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that it related only to painting. The fourth document related to laying of plastic felts over the roof. That certificate was issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D. North West sub-division, Chepauk, Madras on 3. 1994. The value of the work was nearly 1.50 lakhs. Learned counsel for the respondents commented that it was not civil work. We are unable to accept the same. The fifth document is a certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., North Presidency Division, Madras-5 on 23. 1994, referring to the petitioner’s carrying out repairs to leaky roofs. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the said repairs were affected only by putting Tar felts over the roofs and it will not amount to civil work. We are unable to accept this contention. 10. Thus the aforesaid five documents which were among the enclosures to the petitioner’s letter dated 26. 1994 clearly prove that the petitioner had satisfied the requirements of the terms and conditions prescribed in Circular No.16/1990 dated 28. 1990. Even if two of the works could be said to relate to painting, the others undoubtedly related to civil work as interpreted by the respondent’s counsel. .11. We must, however, point out that the contention that painting would not fall within the expression “civil work” may not be correct. Even the Press Notice dated 26. 1994 issued by the respondents brings ‘painting within the ambit of ‘civil works’. We have already referred to item No.1in the said notice. But, however, it is not necessary for us to decide that controversial issue in this proceeding. We do not express any final opinion on the matter but leave open the question and proceed to dispose of the appeal on the footing that even if the respondents’ contention that ‘painting’ is not part of ‘Civil work’ is accepted, the rejection of the petitioner’s request for issue of tender schedules is erroneous. 12. Apart from the abovesaid five documents, the petitioner had also sent the certificate of registration issued to him by the Public Works Department of the State Government. That is evident from a letter dated 26. 1989 sent by the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. Special Buildings Circle, Erode. The petitioner had been registered as a Contractor as per the prevailing G.O. in force under Class I.A. for executing works costing below Rs.25,00,000 in State level. That is evident from a letter dated 26. 1989 sent by the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. Special Buildings Circle, Erode. The petitioner had been registered as a Contractor as per the prevailing G.O. in force under Class I.A. for executing works costing below Rs.25,00,000 in State level. It cannot be disputed that to get registered as a Contractor with the P.W.D. it is necessary for a person to prove prior experience and establish before the concerned authorities that the person concerned had carried out civil works upto a particular value. In fact that is also evident from the Circular 16/1990 referred to already. The preamble portion which we have extracted earlier would show that the conditions for registration of contractors for various classes by the P.W.D. (in fact case C.P.W.D.), are to the effect that the persons who seek registration should have satisfactorily completed the works. The respondents have adopted only those conditions as prescribed by the C.P.W.D. for the purpose of fixing the eligibility to participate in a tender. 13. In addition to the above documents the appellant has produced copies of a letter dated 5. 1992 from the second respondent and an agreement dated 15. 1992 signed by both parties. The documents show that the petitioner was entrusted with the work of Annual Repairs and maintenance to civil works at FSD, F.C.T. Avadi for the year 199293 of the value of Rs.1,43,0042. The date of commencement was 25. 1992 and the completion 28. 1992. The said documents were undoubtedly available with the respondents. 14. Thus, it is evident that the refusal of the respondents to furnish the petitioner with tender Schedules is clearly erroneous and unwarranted. We do not find sufficient materials on record to hold that the refusal is mala fide as alleged by the petitioner. But, we are of the opinion that the officials of the respondents have been grossly negligent in not scrutinising the documents sent by the petitioner to them along with his letter dated 28. 1994. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the order of the City Civil Court in the interlocutory application in O.S. No.3216 of 1993. That order is of no use in these proceedings as it is based on the materials placed before that court. It is only an interlocutory order and it cannot conclude the rights of the parties. 16. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the order of the City Civil Court in the interlocutory application in O.S. No.3216 of 1993. That order is of no use in these proceedings as it is based on the materials placed before that court. It is only an interlocutory order and it cannot conclude the rights of the parties. 16. Unfortunately, the above facts were not taken note of by the learned single Judge and the prayer of the petitioner for issue of mandamus has been rejected. No doubt it is not possible for us to issue a mandamus as the contract had already been entered into by the respondents with a third party who is not impleaded in those proceedings and the work has already commenced. The petitioner may be entitled to damages. But, the materials placed before us are not sufficient to decide the question of quantum of damages. It is open to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings, if so advised, for claim-ing damages against the respondents. However, we are of the view that this is a fit matter in which we should direct the respondents to pay costs to the petitioner as they have failed to place the correct facts before the court. In any event, they ought to have scrutinised the documents of the petitioner before filing the preliminary counter-affidavit in the writ petition. In a way, they have misled the court by making a wrong statement which is not supported by the records and which resulted in the dismissal of the writ petition. 17. Consequently, we dismiss the writ appeal as it is not possible for us to grant the prayer of the petitioner as made in the writ petition. However, we direct the respondents to pay the costs of the petitioner in this writ appeal. Counsel’s fee Rs.3,000. The amount shall be paid to the petitioner by the Food Corporation of India. It is open to the authorities concerned to recover the said amount from the concerned officials who may be found to be responsible for the grave lapse.