Madras High Court
R.Janaki vs ) The Project Director (Tsunami) on 17 December, 2019
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: A.P.Sahi, Subramonium Prasad
W.A(MD)No.1384 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.12.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.P.SAHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.A.(MD)No.1384 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011
R.Janaki : Appellant/ Petitioner
Vs.
1) The Project Director (Tsunami),
Ezhilagam,
Beach Road, Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005
2) The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3) The Additional Collector,
Project Coordinator,
District Implementation Unit(Tsunami),
Ramanathapuram. : Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
order dated 04.08.2011 passed in W.P(MD)No.5628 of 2008.
For Appellant : Mr.I.Irulappan
For Respondents : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan,
Special Government Pleader
******
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1384 of 2011
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.] The writ petitioner is the appellant. The writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.06.2008 terminating the contract entered into between the petitioner and the State Government for construction of 180 houses called Tsunami Rehabilitation House under Rajiv Gandhi Rehabilitation Programme at TSUNAMI hit areas.
2. Stating that the petitioner has not even commenced the work for the majority of the houses, the contract was terminated and the earnest deposit of Rs.10,52,000/-, which was lying with the State as bank guarantee, was forfeited. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, refused to entertain the writ petition stating that there are disputed questions of facts and therefore, the parties must invoke the Arbitration Clause.
3. The appellant before us states that the site was not handed over and therefore, he was not able to start the work. This fact is stoutly contested by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. It is well settled that the Writ Court cannot traverse into the disputed questions of facts and adjudicate the same only on the basis of http://www.judis.nic.in W.A(MD)No.1384 of 2011 the affidavit. The order of the learned Single Judge refusing to entertain the writ petition cannot be interfered with and the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. The parties have to invoke the arbitration clause. However, this will not preclude the appellant petitioner from making any representation on the issue, whether the site was actually handed over or not.
5. At this juncture, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant petitioner that they have already given a representation dated 08.10.2016 to this effect and it is for the Government to consider the same and dispose it of within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 is closed.
[A.P.S.,CJ.,] [S.P.,J.]
17.12.2019
Index : Yes/No
RR/sts
To
1) The Project Director (Tsunami),
Ezhilagam,
Beach Road, Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005
2) The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3) The Additional Collector,
Project Coordinator,
District Implementation Unit(Tsunami), http://www.judis.nic.inRamanathapuram. W.A(MD)No.1384 of 2011
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
RR/sts JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD)No.1384 of 2011 Dated:
17.12.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in