Madras High CourtWP/22622/2026disposed of with direction

V.Yoganathan v. Principal Secretary To Government

2026-06-16Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI V.Yoganathan S/o.D.Venkatesan, Residing at No.31, Main Road, Pandavakkam Village, Kunnavakkam (P.O), Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram District- 603107.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, chennai-09.

2. Directorate of Anti- Corruption and Vigilance Department DVAC Headquarters, No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai- 16.

3. Directorate of Municipal Administration 75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-028.

4. Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning Kanchipuram Zone.

5. Project Officer Kanchipuram Zone.

6. Assistant Executive Engineer

7. Junior Assistant

8. Executive Officer ..Respondent(s) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 8th respondent not to take any coercive action, including cancellation, suspension or interference with petitioner class- I Contractor License, except by following the procedure established by law, issuing a show cause notice, furnishing all materials relied upon, considering petitioner explanation dated 26.05.2026 and affording a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and consequently direct the 8th respondents to permit petitioner to continue to function as a class -I Contractor. For Petitioner(s):

M/s.S.Mythreye Chandru For Respondent(s):

Mr.C.Prabakaran, Government Counsel RR1 to 8

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 8th respondent not to take any coercive action, including cancellation, suspension or interference with petitioner class- I Contractor License, except by following the procedure established by law, issuing a show cause notice, furnishing all materials relied upon, considering petitioner explanation dated 26.05.2026 and affording a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and consequently direct the 8th respondents to permit petitioner to continue to function as a class -I Contractor.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Class-I Contractor carrying on business under the name and style ''Yoganathan Work Contractor'' and has been executing Government Contract works since the year 2017. Under proceedings dated 18.08.2023, the respondents entrusted the petitioner with various developmental works including the work viz., Anaipallam Kulam Mempadu Seithal Pani'' valued at Rs.20,00,000/- besides two other drainage with the approved estimates, specifications and contractual conditions. The works were duly inspected by the competent authorities, found satisfactory, completion certificates were issued verification and acceptance of the completed works. After a lapse of nearly 17 months from completion of the project, the Vigilance Department conducted an enquiry relating to the pond development work.

No written summons or notice was issued to the petitioner. During enquiry, no allegation was made against the petitioner. The only issue raised was regarding the alleged non-availability of certain tree saplings planted along the pond bund. The petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 26.05.2026 along with all supporting documents and photographs establishing due execution of the works and the absence of any malpractice, financial loss or contractual violation. Despite the same, the petitioner has been orally informed by the officials that action may be initiated to cancel his Class-I Contractor License based on the vigilance enquiry.

that adverse action may be taken against the petitioner without considering his explanation and without following due process of law. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not issued any show cause notice prior to the enquiry and was orally instructed to cancel the Class-I Contractor license of the petitioner. Hence, this Court may direct the respondents to issue show cause notice to the petitioner, conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders. Till such time, this Court may direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents will decide the issue after conducting an enquiry in proper manner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the limited request sought for by the petitioner, this court directs the 8th respondent to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the 8th respondent shall conclude the enquiry and pass appropriate orders after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of six weeks thereafter.

7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 16-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rli To