Judgment :- (Writ petition been filed praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent, in Letter No.CE/D/ED/EEC/AEE/Civil/F.CD/D.109/2006 dated 17.2.2006 insofar as the clause "the value not less than Rs.15 Lakhs in single contract" in the Bid Qualification requirement and quash the same as illegal.) This writ petition has been filed praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent, in Letter No.CE/D/ED/EEC/AEE/Civil/F.CD/D.109/2006 dated 17.2.2006 insofar as the clause "the value not less than Rs.15 Lakhs in single contract" in the Bid Qualification requirement and quash the same as illegal. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a registered Class-I contractor with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. He has done several civil works with the Board. He applied for a tender with respect to casting of 6600 Nos. of 7.50 metres and 6328 Nos. of 8 metres poles as per REC design. The contention of the writ petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, Chief Engineer/Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Erode region, introduced a new clause in the tender, which is not found in the previous tenders or Board proceedings, without following the guidelines issued by the Board. The 2nd respondent has no authority to introduce such a new clause in contravention of the directions of the Board. It is the further case of the petitioner that a representation made by him to the 2nd respondent is kept pending without disposal. The act of the 2nd respondent is tailor-made to suit pre-identified individuals. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for quashing the aforesaid letter dated 17.2.06 introducing the clause "the value not less than Rs.15 Lakhs in single contract" in the Bid Qualification requirement. 3. In the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, it is contended that the petitioner has carried out pole casting works only for the value of Rs.5,73,504/= during the year 2001-02 in a single contract. The petitioner, who took up the work of transportation of PSC poles in the Erode region in the year 2003-04 failed to carry out the work as per the agreement and in fact the Superintending Engineer of the region has proposed to claim liquidated damages for such a delay in execution of the work. The petitioner, who took up the work of transportation of PSC poles in the Erode region in the year 2003-04 failed to carry out the work as per the agreement and in fact the Superintending Engineer of the region has proposed to claim liquidated damages for such a delay in execution of the work. The very same type of clause "the value not less than Rs.10 lakhs in a single contract" has been adopted in the tenders for the value of the work of Rs.16.90 lakhs for casting of PSC poles at MG Pudur PSC Yard in Coimbatore region. Since the investment in PSC pole casting works is more on account of the cost of materials to be procured and labour charges involved, the contractors, who are quoting the tender should have the capacity of doing the work efficiently in single agreement. If the contractors not having such capacity are allowed to participate in the tender and the work is awarded to them, the execution of the work would be delayed and the same will have an adverse impact on the various targeted works of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in Erode region. As per the tender regulation and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the rules made therein, Bid Qualification requirement in this case has been prescribed. Further, the Chief Engineer, who is the tender inviting authority has every power to adopt the Bid Qualification requirements on the basis of experience, past-performance, capabilities of the tenderer, financial status and capacity of the contractors. The condition imposed by the 2nd respondent is not arbitrary since tenders were called for under open tender system and advertisement has already been published in the newspapers. It cannot be alleged that the Bid Qualification requirements were tailor-made to suit pre-identified individuals. The petitioner participated in the tender opening on behalf of Thiru V.Kuppusamy, another contractor. The 2nd respondent would further contend that there is no merit in the writ petition and, hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent has acted without jurisdiction. The 2nd respondent should have adhered to the Board's prescription of Qualification for such tender. The introduction of a new clause without authority by the 2nd respondent is arbitrary. The representation given by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent remains unanswered. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent has acted without jurisdiction. The 2nd respondent should have adhered to the Board's prescription of Qualification for such tender. The introduction of a new clause without authority by the 2nd respondent is arbitrary. The representation given by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent remains unanswered. The petitioner being a Class-I contractor of repute has been deliberately screened with a view to suit pre-identified individuals. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that there is misconception in the mind of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent, who is the tender inviting authority has no power to introduce the Bid Qualification Requirement in the tenders called for by him. Having the broad guidelines issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in mind, the 2nd respondent, taking into consideration the volume of work involved, the capacity of the tenderer required and the impact of non-performance within the time frame on the other schemes to be executed by the Board, has rightly invoked the provision under Section 32 (1) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 and prescribed the pre-qualification for bidding. There is also a precedent in Coimbatore region to call for tenders in such a fashion considering the nature of work involved and the urgency in execution of the work. 6. The Letter No.SE/EEDC/ED/AEE/CIVIL/DM/F.REG/ D.910/02 dated 16.10.02 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Erode, to the petitioner herein would establish that the petitioner has been registered as Class-I contractor in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for carrying out civil works for the value above Rs.75 Lakhs. The said registration is valid for five years (i.e.) from 16.10.02 to 15.10.07. As per Memo No.1(D)/CE/CD/SE/CH/E1/A4/ F.Pole/D.248 dated 17.10.01, the Chief Engineer (Civil Designs) has prescribed revised pre-qualification requirement for different values of works while calling for tenders for the manufacture of RCC/PSC poles in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. For the execution of the work valued at Rs.25 Lakhs and above, the Pre-Qualification prescribed is that the contractor should be a Class-I contractor having experience in building construction and RCC works, PSC/FCC pole casting works alone will have to be considered. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has again raised the monetary limit of the Class-I category contractors to above Rs.75 Lakhs as per the circular Memo CE/CD/SE/CH/E4/A1/SDM/F/ DOC./D 1127/2001 dated 2.11.2001. 7. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has again raised the monetary limit of the Class-I category contractors to above Rs.75 Lakhs as per the circular Memo CE/CD/SE/CH/E4/A1/SDM/F/ DOC./D 1127/2001 dated 2.11.2001. 7. What has been prescribed in the aforesaid memoranda is only a broad pre-qualification requirement prescribed by the Board. Such a memorandum does not take away the power conferred on the tender inviting authority, who is none other than the 2nd respondent in this case, to provide for pre-qualification of tenderers as contemplated under Rule 32 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. It is pertinent to verbatim refer to the said rule :- "32. Pre-qualification procedure :- (1) The Tender Inviting authority shall for reasons to be recorded in writing provide for pre-qualification of tenderers on the basis of, (a) experience and past performance in the execution of similar contracts ; (b) capabilities of the tenderer with respect to personnel, equipment and construction or manufacturing facilities ; (c) financial status and capacity. (2) Only the bids of pre-qualified bidders shall be considered for evaluation." 8. The official memorandum or circular issued by the Superintending Engineer cannot stultify the powers of the tender inviting authority to impose a Bid pre-qualification on the tenderers taking stock of the requirement in a particular work. The financial status and capacity of the tenderer to execute such a mammoth work will also have to be taken into account by the tender inviting authority at the time of imposing pre-qualification on the tenderer. The 2nd respondent has felt that a tenderer, who had not executed so far RCC works and building construction/RCC or PSC pole casting works for a value not less than Rs.15 Lakhs in a single contract for any of the Central/State/Quasi Government Firms may not suit the present work proposed to be executed. 9. It is not as if the 2nd respondent alone has come out with such introduction of a Bid pre-qualification requirement for the first time. In Coimbatore region, a similar clause has been incorporated in the Bid Qualification requirement by the Executive Engineer considering the nature of work involved and the capacity of the tenderer required for execution of such work. Therefore, the petitioner cannot validly level an allegation that the action of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary. In Coimbatore region, a similar clause has been incorporated in the Bid Qualification requirement by the Executive Engineer considering the nature of work involved and the capacity of the tenderer required for execution of such work. Therefore, the petitioner cannot validly level an allegation that the action of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary. Further it is found that tenders have been called for under open tender system after properly making advertisements in newspapers. When open tenders called for has received wide publicity, it cannot be said that the said pre-qualification requirement introduced has been tailor-made to suit pre-identified individuals. Such an allegation is found to be totally uncharitable. 10. The petitioner, who has got basic qualification as per the proceedings of the Board referred to by the petitioner should also satisfy the specific Bid pre-qualification, prescribed by the 2nd respondent, drawing inspiration from Rule 32 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. 12. The 2nd respondent has convincingly stated that the petitioner himself appeared before him saying about the Bid pre-qualification fixed by the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent suitably replied to him with regard to the stand of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board across the table. Therefore, the failure to issue any written reply to the representation given by the petitioner on 7.3.06 will not clothe any right on the petitioner, more especially when the 2nd respondent has acted well within the powers conferred on him by the Rules. It is not as if the whole tender proceedings were taken behind the back of the petitioner. Though the petitioner had not participated on his behalf before the 2nd respondent while opening the tender, it is found that he has chosen to participate in the tender proceedings on behalf of one of the tenderers, namely, Thiru.Kuppusamy. Therefore, he cannot claim that he was all along kept in the dark about the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent. 13. The 2nd respondent is well within his powers to introduce any Bid pre-qualification requirement considering the nature of work involved under Rule 32 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. The general guideline issued by the Board cannot strangulate the wide powers conferred on the 2nd respondent by the aforesaid rule. 13. The 2nd respondent is well within his powers to introduce any Bid pre-qualification requirement considering the nature of work involved under Rule 32 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. The general guideline issued by the Board cannot strangulate the wide powers conferred on the 2nd respondent by the aforesaid rule. The petitioner has knocked at the doors of this court when he is not possessed of the required Bid pre-qualification just to stall the tender proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent. It appears that the 2nd respondent, as per the directions of this Court, has already opened the tender, but the tender was not confirmed so far as there had been a stay on confirmation of the tender. 14. On the discussion made above, I am of the considered view that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In result, the writ petition stands dismissed with a direction to the 2nd respondent to confirm the tender within four weeks from the date of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.