Madras High Court
G.T.Chandrasekaran vs The District Collector on 1 July, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P(MD)No.17678 of 202
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P(MD).No.17678 of 2025
G.T.Chandrasekaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Korampallam,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayat),
O/o. the Assistant Director (Panchayat),
Collectorate,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Block Development Officer (Block Panchayats),
O/o. Panchayat Union,
Udangudi,
Tiruchendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
4.Jancy Rani,
The Block Development Officer (Block Panchayats),
O/o. Panchayat Union,
Udangudi,
Tiruchendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:17 pm )
W.P(MD)No.17678 of 202
5.Ibrahim Sulthan,
The Block Development Officer (Block Panchayats),
O/o. Panchayat Union,
Udangudi,
Tiruchendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
6.T.B.Bala Singh,
S/o. Perumal,
Udangudi Panchayat Union Chairman,
R/o. 1/24, Koil Villai,
Kuthirai Mozhi,
Tiruchendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
7.K.Rama Lakshmi,
W/o. Gobalakannan,
Udangudi Panchayat Union Councilor,
R/o. 13/143, Munthiri Thottam,
Paramakurichi,
Tiruchendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
8.E.Leborin,
S/o. Ethalpet,
Udangudi Panchayat Union Councilor,
R/o.254, Meenavar Colony,
Manappadu,
Tiruchendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
9.A.Thanga Lakshmi,
W/o. Athilingam,
Udangudi Panchayat Union Councilor,
R/o.6/114, Shankaralingapuram,
Keela Ramasamypuram,
Lakshimipuram,
Tiruchendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:17 pm )
W.P(MD)No.17678 of 202
10.C.Meera,
W/o. Sirasudeen,
Udangudi Panchayat Union Vice Chairman,
R/o. 191/286, Iyynthu Varna Street,
Kulasekarapattinam,
Tiruchendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi
11.J.Selwyn Thomas,
W/o. Joseph,
Udangudi Panchayat Union Councilor,
R/o. 1/308, Ymca Street,
Meignanapuram,
Tiruchendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District. ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned resolution rejection passed by the
respondents 6 to 11 in Agenda Number 59 on 23.08.2024 on the file of the
third respondent and quash the same as illegal and further direct the first
respondent to initiate action against the sixth respondent and its associates by
making them pay Rs.20 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner as their denial
of the petitioner's rightful demand to illegal and happened in the backdrop of
demanding bribe.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajiv Rupus
For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:17 pm )
W.P(MD)No.17678 of 202
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned resolution rejection passed by the respondents 6 to 11 in Agenda Number 59 on 23.08.2024 on the file of the third respondent and further directing the first respondent to initiate action against the sixth respondent and its associates by making them pay Rs.20 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner as their denial of the petitioner's rightful demand to illegal and happened in the backdrop of demanding bribe.
2. The petitioner appears to have submitted an application on 05.02.2024 before the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union, Udangudi, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District, for recognizing him as a contractor for carrying out works on behalf of the said Panchayat. It appears that the petitioner had made an allegation that the sixth respondent, the Chairman of the Udangudi Panchayat Union, had demanded Rs.50,000/- as illegal gratification for giving recognition to the petitioner. The said complaint was forwarded to the Block Development Officer, and the Block Development Officer by an order dated 14.08.2024 concluded that there has 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:17 pm ) W.P(MD)No.17678 of 202 been no case made out against the sixth respondent. In this background, the petitioner’s application, dated 05.02.2024 came up for consideration before the Council. The Council has rejected the petitioner's request for recognising as a Contractor with the following observations:
“cld;Fb Cuhl;rp xd;wpaj;jpy;> jpU.G.T.re;jpuNrfh; vd;gth; cld;Fb Cuhl;rp xd;wpa mstpy; gzpfis vLj;J nra;tjw;F xg;ge;jf;fhuuhf gjpT nra;jpl Nfl;Ls;shh;. md;dhh; Mtzj;jpd;gb &.10.00,yl;rk; kjpg;Gs;s xg;ge;jf;fhuhf mDkjpj;jpl xd;wpa nghwpahsh; ghpe;Jiu nra;Js;shh;. md;dhiu xg;ge;jf;fhuuhf gjpT nra;jpl kd;wk; mDkjpf;fhf.”
3. A reading of the above resolution of the Council indicates that although the petitioner has submitted a solvency Certificate, the petitioner's application for recognition as a Contractor for the union cannot be accepted.
There is no reason given for rejecting the application of the petitioner. The said decision appears to be unanimous and perhaps influenced by the order of the Block Development Officer, dated 14.08.2024, which was passed in response to the petitioner's complaint/petition dated 08.17.2024 against the sixth respondent, Chairman.
4. The rejection of the application of the petitioner merely because the petitioner's request was turned on by the Block Development Officer, dated 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:17 pm ) W.P(MD)No.17678 of 202 14.08.2024, ipso facto would not justify the refusal to recognise the petitioner as a Contractor, if the petitioner is otherwise qualified for being considered. Unless there are other circumstances justifying the conclusion in the resolution in Agenda No.59 on 23.08.2024 passed by the respondents is not sustainable. The petitioner may have a grievance against the sixth respondent and the decision of the Block Development Officer, dated 14.08.2024 rejecting the complaint of the petitioner on 18.07.2024. However, it would not mean the Council is empowered to reject the application. The rejection would amounts to rejection of the application on extraneous ground.
5. Therefore, the impugned resolution in Agenda No.59 is quashed. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner afresh uninfluenced by the order of the Block Development Officer, dated 14.08.2024. It is made clear that the petitioner’s application can be rejected only if the petitioner has any another disability which would come in the way of recognizing the petitioner as a recognized/registered contractor for work given by the respondent Union Panchayat. The petitioner is given liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings if advised.
6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:17 pm ) W.P(MD)No.17678 of 202
6. The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
01.07.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sn
To
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Korampallam,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayat),
O/o. the Assistant Director (Panchayat),
Collectorate,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Block Development Officer (Block Panchayats), O/o. Panchayat Union, Udangudi, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:17 pm ) W.P(MD)No.17678 of 202 C.SARAVANAN, J.
sn W.P(MD).No.17678 of 2025 01.07.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:17 pm )