ORDER : (J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.) This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue the working condition of Machinery Certificate to participate in Package 21 Improvements to the 22 nos of Interior BT, CC Roads in Z-13 issued vide e-tender notice BRR.C.No.B4/1162/2025-21, package 23- Improvements to the 22 nos of Interior BT Roads in Z-14 issued vide e-tender notice BRR.C.No.B4/1162/2025-23, package 24- Improvements to the 36 nos of Interior BT Roads in Z-14 issued vide e-tender notice BRR.C.No. B4/1162/2025-24, Package 11- for Improvements to the 47 nos of Interior BT & CC Roads in Z-13 & 14 issued vide e-tender notice BRR.C.No. B4/1164/2025-11, Package 14 - for Improvements to the 29 nos of Interior BT & CC Roads in Z-12 & 15 issued vide e-tender notice BRR.C.No. B4/1164/2025-14, Package 15 for improvements to the 34 nos of Interior BT & CC Roads in Z-15 issued vide e-tender notice BRR.C.No.B4/1164/2025-15, dated 10.04.2025 and in the alternate to direct the respondent to accept the tender documents uploaded by the petitioner without insisting on the production of Working Condition of Machinery Certificate from the respondents for the above said works. 2. The petitioner is a state-level Class - I contractor engaged in building, road, and construction works for various government departments for over ten years without any adverse remarks. The petitioner has a strong track record with an annual turnover of around Rs.35 crores, and notably completed a major road project worth Rs. 10 crores for the Airport Authority of India, Chennai, during 2022-23. On 10.04.2025, the respondent floated six e-Tender Notices (BRR.C.No. B4/1162/2025-21, 23, 24 and BRR.C.No. B4/1164/2025-11, 14, 15) inviting bids for improvement works relating to interior BT and CC roads across different zones. The tender schedules were uploaded online only on23.04.2025. 3. Upon reviewing the uploaded documents, the petitioner came to know about a mandatory requirement for a “Working Condition of Machinery Certificate” as part of the tender submission process. The petitioner, intending to participate in Packages 21, 23, 24, 11, 14 and 15, approached the respondent for the issuance of the required certificate. The tenders, relating to improvement works of interior BT and CC roads, were scheduled for bid submission by 29.04.2025. However, the respondent allegedly adopted delay tactics and did not act on the request, despite repeated representations by email and registered post on 23.04.2025. The tenders, relating to improvement works of interior BT and CC roads, were scheduled for bid submission by 29.04.2025. However, the respondent allegedly adopted delay tactics and did not act on the request, despite repeated representations by email and registered post on 23.04.2025. It is the petitioner’s case that the respondent has already decided to favour certain contractors and demanded unlawful gratification in exchange for issuing the certificates. Left with no other effective remedy and facing imminent closure of the tender process, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner’s bid was unjustly rejected despite having already applied for the required certificate, which is still pending before the competent authority. The delay in issuing the certificate is without valid reason, although the petitioner owns all requisite machinery in good working condition and has previously been issued such certificates. 5. It is further submitted that the sudden introduction of the “Working Condition of Machinery Certificate” requirement was intended to eliminate eligible contractors and favour certain bidders. The third respondent is alleged to have deliberately withheld the certificate from the petitioner while favouring others, acting with mala fide intent and allegedly demanding illegal gratification. 6. Such conduct, it is contended, has violated the petitioner’s right to carry on business, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. With no alternative or efficacious remedy available, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court through the present writ petition. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for R1 would submit that the petitioner may be directed to submit her tender on or before 02.05.2025 and the same would be considered by the 1st respondent Corporation on merits, in accordance with law within a time frame stipulated by this Court. 8. It is further submitted that the Competent Authority to issue the consent to the petitioner is the District Environmental Engineer. It is necessary to implead the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District, as a party in the present writ petition. 9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 10. In view of the above submission, this Court suo motu impleads the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District, the 2 nd respondent in the above writ petition 11. 9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 10. In view of the above submission, this Court suo motu impleads the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District, the 2 nd respondent in the above writ petition 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to pass the following directions: a) The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned District Environmental Engineer by tomorrow [29.04.2025] at 10.30 a.m. b) The petitioner is directed to submit his tender on or before 02.05.2025 by 3 p.m. that is the last date for submitting the tender. (c) On receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to inspect the site of the petitioner and, if satisfied with the guidelines of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, issue the consent to the petitioner on or before 06.05.2025 so as to enable the petitioner to submit the same before 1st respondent on 07.05.2025 by 3 p.m., the last date fixed by the 1 st respondent Corporation, since it is one of the conditions stipulated in the tender Notification issued by the 1 st respondent.” In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and directions . No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.