K. Kalyanasundaram ORDER
K. Kalyanasundaram, J.
1. Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. The petitioner has come forward with these Writ Petitions for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to accept the Work Completion Certificate dated 17.09.2016 submitted by the petitioner for processing the tender proceeding in NCB No. 81/2017-18, for providing Sewerage Collection System for UGSS in Vellore Corporation under Packages I and II, tender proceeding No. CNT/SEW/NCB/AMRUT-ADB/001/2017-2018 for providing Comprehensive Sewerage Scheme to Manali, Chinnasekkadu, Karambakkam and Manapakkam in Chennai City; tender proceeding in No. NCB No. 223/2017-18 for providing Sewerage Collection System in the extended areas of Corporation for UGSS in Trichy Corporation under Package I respectively.
3. Mr. ARL. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is a reputed civil contractor having implemented major projects worth of Rs. 1,500 Crores for Under Ground Sewage Scheme and Sewage Treatment Plant in various Municipal Corporations and Municipalities. In the year 2009, the petitioner participated in the tender called for by the second respondent for UGSC to Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation and after successfully executing the tender project, Work Completion Certificate was issued on 17.09.2016. It is further submitted that in the tender floated by the first respondent (in all the respective Writ Petitions), the petitioner had participated and also produced the Work Completion Certificate issued by the second respondent.
4. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the certificate produced by the petitioner has to be accepted by the first respondent as per the tender conditions and there was no necessity to seek genuineness of the certificate from the second respondent. It is further contended that if at all the second respondent can give a reply stating that whether the certificate was genuine or forged and the second respondent has no right or authority to give comments on the work executed by the petitioner in Coimbatore. It is the case of the petitioner that the decision of the first respondent to get opinion of the genuineness of the Work Completion Certificate is an arbitrary exercise of power to eliminate the petitioner from the tender process and it is also beyond the terms and conditions of the tender documents.
5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that it is not the case of the second respondent that the Work Completion Certificate dated 17.09.2016 is fake or forged and therefore, a positive direction should be issued to the first respondent to accept the Work Completion Certificate for processing the tender documents submitted by the petitioner.
6. Mr. S. Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent in W.P. No. 7711 of 2018 submitted that these Writ Petitions are premature in nature and it is the prerogative of the employer to follow procedure to ascertain the details of the tenderer to ensure proper implementation of the Scheme in the interest of public and this procedure is followed to all the participants and hence, it is not an arbitrary exercise of power and this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue direction to the first respondent to accept the work Completion Certificate at this juncture. It is further contended that the petitioner, who was well aware of the fact that the first respondent had already sought opinion about execution of the work by the petitioner and filed Writ Petitions seeking direction to the second respondent to give information about the genuineness of the certificate in the earlier Writ ........