V.Nandagopalan v. The Pwd Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.P.No.8252 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.9262 of 2025 V.Nandagopalan S/o Late Venkataswamy 1/484, Jothi Nagar 1st Street, Padianallur, Redhills Chennai 600 052 Petitioner-in-Person Vs

1. The PWD Secretary St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009

2. The Registrar (Administration) Madras High Court Campus,

3. Kuzhanthayan Executive Engineer, North Presidency Division, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005

4. The Assistant Executive Engineer High Court Campus,

5. Shankar, Assistant Engineer, High Court Campus,

6. The Superintendent, PWD Department Madras Circle, Chepauk Chennai 600 005 Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the representation dated 11.10.2024 which contains mainly making of advocate car shed in all four sides of the campus. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.V.Nandagopalan Petitioner-in-person For Respondents:

Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar State Government Pleader assisted by Mr.V.Veeramani Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 4 & 6 Mr.M.Santhanaraman for respondent No.2

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Shri Prabakar places on record the registration of a construction firm - Sivesh Constructions with Public Works Department, a copy whereof is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification. From the said registration it appears that petitioner, who is an advocate and appearing in person, is also a partner of Sivesh Constructions.

2. Shri Prabakar submits that this public interest litigation is only to drum up more business for the partnership firm. Naturally, petitioner disputes. Petitioner states that he has ceased to be a partner of the firm and the partnership firm has ceased to exist. However, the fact that petitioner was a partner in the firm, which carried out contracts for Public Works Department, is not disclosed in the petition.

3. The Public Works Department should make a note of petitioner's statement that the partnership firm has been dissolved and, therefore, no

contract should be given to the said firm and, if already given, steps should be taken to terminate those contracts.

4. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is directed to examine the issue as to whether petitioner could continue to be an advocate in its rolls by following due process.

5. Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application is closed.

(K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ.) (SUNDER MOHAN, J.) 12.06.2025 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No Note:

Registry to mark a copy of this order to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

bbr

To:

1. The PWD Secretary St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009

2. The Registrar (Administration) Madras High Court Campus,

3. The Assistant Executive Engineer High Court Campus,

4. The Superintendent, PWD Department Madras Circle, Chepauk Chennai 600 005

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.

bbr W.P.No.8252 of 2025 12.06.2025