Judgment :- Petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his tender offer submitted in pursuance to the Notification dated 13.12.2002 made in T.No.14/2002/D-2 issued by the second respondent with regard to item No.2 and consequently direct the respondents to award the contract relating to item No.2 to him. 2. On direction, the learned Government Advocate appears for respondents. 3. According to the petitioner, he is a registered class I contractor in the National Highways for the past 25 years and he had also executed various works for the National Highways and Highways Department and also other Departments for the Government of Tamil Nadu. The second respondent had issued a Notification dated 13.12.2002 published in 'Makkal Kural' dated 21.12.2002, calling for three works under the said Notification. Since the petitioner having the necessary qualifications as prescribed under the said Notification had applied for and received the tender schedule for the second item of works in the said Notification and he had submitted the tender schedule duly filled in along with necessary requisite particulars and documents as called for by the second respondent. 4. The tenders were opened on 23.1.2003 at the office of the second respondent. The petitioner had personally attended the office of the Superintending Engineer on the date of the opening of the tender schedule. There were five bidders for the second item of the works. On opening of the tenders, it was found that the petitioner was the lowest bidder among the five tenderers and was declared as L-1. After waiting for 10 days, in the absence of any intimation, he had approached the Office of the second respondent to enquire into the matter, where he found that the second respondent has taken necessary action in throwing out the petitioner and was recommending another person, who has quoted much higher than this petitioner. The application of the petitioner is sought to be rejected. The conclusion of the second respondent is totally erroneous for the fact that the petitioner had completed more than 40% of the aforesaid works under a Power of Attorney from one Mr.Velusamy, who is a Class I contractor, who has successfully getting works for special repairs to Ramanad to Melur Road. The action of the respondents is totally erroneous. Hence the present writ petition. 5. The action of the respondents is totally erroneous. Hence the present writ petition. 5. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the learned Government Advocate secured necessary instructions from the respondents. 6. It is seen from the instructions that the writ petition relates to item No.2 Ramanad Highway Division. The tenders received up to 23.1.2003 were opened by 3.15 p.m. on the same day i.e. on 23.1.2003. Five tenderers offered their estimate rate. On the day of opening, it was informed to the contractors present that after evaluation of tenders and its related documents the lowest tenderers will be called for negotiation of price. on evaluation of tenders, two contractors, who have not enclosed the required documents for the proof of completion of 40% (by quantity) similar nature of items in any one work in any one year during the past five years were informed and requested to produce required certificate on or before 30.1.2003. The petitioner M.S.A. Liaquath Ali did not submit any documentary evidence for the completion of 40% of work as per tender condition. It is further stated that among the valid tenders, lowest tenderer viz., Thiru V.Manoharan, Ramanathapuram was requested to offer his negotiation for price and accordingly the negotiated price of 0.10% less estimate rate was recommended to the Chief Engineer, National Highways for onward submission to the Commissionerate of tender for approval. It is further stated that thereafter, at the request of the Chief Engineer, second opportunity was given by way of a letter dated 17.2.2002 to the petitioner as well as one S.Ravichandran. In response to the said letter, the petitioner submitted a certificate of experience issued by a private contractor with power of attorney. It is stated that since the certificate is not a authenticated certificate, the request of the petitioner was not considered. The experience certificate submitted by Thiru S.Ravichandran also was not accepted since he did not fulfil the quantity requirements. Hence the tenders submitted by the petitioner as well as S.Ravichandran become invalid. Therefore detailed reports were submitted to the Chief Engineer, National Highways, Chennai with a recommendation to get approval of the lowest tender quoted and negotiated from V.Manoharan, Ramanathapuram, among the valid tenders. 7. Hence the tenders submitted by the petitioner as well as S.Ravichandran become invalid. Therefore detailed reports were submitted to the Chief Engineer, National Highways, Chennai with a recommendation to get approval of the lowest tender quoted and negotiated from V.Manoharan, Ramanathapuram, among the valid tenders. 7. Mr.K.Kumaresh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after drawing my attention to the conditions prescribed in the tender Notification dated 13.12.2002 and various documents evidencing completion of work by the petitioner would contend that necessary direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner. 8. I am unable to accept the said contention for the following reasons. 9. In order to appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is useful to refer condition No.1 of the tender Notification dated 13.12.2002, which reads as under: "1. The intending Contractors should have completed 40% of quantity of similar nature of each major items in the above works such as WBM, BUSG, BM, SDBC & PC in any single work in any one year during the last five years. The tenders of such of those contractors who do not fulfil this condition will be summarily rejected." 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by drawing my attention to some of the works completed by the petitioner and the certificate issued by the concerned Engineer would contend that the petitioner has satisfied the above said condition. 11. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate on instructions would point out that the works said to have been completed by the petitioner were not been allotted in his favour and the certificate issued by the concerned authority in favour of other contractor viz., G.Ramakrishnan and others cannot be used for the claim of the petitioner, though it is stated that the Memorandum of Understanding was executed between one Ramakrishnan and the writ petitioner M.S.A.Liaquath Ali as one part and Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Madurai. 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, in the said document, the Superintending Engineer has not signed. vide., (page 14 and 15 of the Additional Typed Set filed by the petitioner). In such circumstance, the said document cannot be relied upon. 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, in the said document, the Superintending Engineer has not signed. vide., (page 14 and 15 of the Additional Typed Set filed by the petitioner). In such circumstance, the said document cannot be relied upon. The other document relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner which finds place at page 16 of the Additional Typed Set, relates to one Thiru G.Ramakrishnan. Here again there is no proof that it was the petitioner who had completed the work. In such circumstances, the documents/materials produced by the petitioner before this Court are not helpful to the petitioner's case. No doubt the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the condition No.1 in the tender Notification does not restrict the completion of work to the extent of 40% relates to the Government Scheme. According to him, the work done by the petitioner on behalf of other contractors and private works have also to be considered. The reading of said class does not lead to such conclusion. The person, who had completed 40% of quantity of similar nature of each major items in the above works alone are to be considered. The documents relating to completion of other works cannot be taken note of. 13. Apart from this, it is also brought to my notice that among the valid tenders, the lowest tender of one V.Manoharan, Ramanathapuram, after negotiation, reduced his price estimate to the extent of 0.10% less than the original offer. It is stated that the said offer was recommended to the concerned authority for consideration and acceptance. 14. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any valid ground to issue direction to the respondents as claimed by the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is dismissed.