P.Suresh v. The Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP.Nos.29328, 29330 & 29332 of 2025 P.Suresh ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Commissioner Kancheepuram City Municipal Corporation,Perarignar Anna Maligai, Hospital Road, Kancheepuram- 631 501.
2. Director Of Municipal Administration No.75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, M.R.C. Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai- 600 028.
3. K.Sudarmani S/o.K.P.Kannan, No.83/26a-3, Chairman Swaminathan Street, Pillayar Palayam, Kancheepuram- 631 501.
..Respondent(s) Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari, Calling for the records of the 1st Respondents Proceedings bearing Na.Ka. No.2444/ 2024/E1, in its Notice calling for tender dated 07.08.2024 and culminating in the work order dated 09.10.2024 issued in favour of the 3rd Respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s. Suhrith Parthasarathy For Respondent(s):
M/S.RA.GOPINATH, Standing Counsel R1 MR.M.Sivavarthanan, Government Counsel R2 M/S.M.GNANASEKAR R3
ORDER
The petitioner, an elected councillor of Ward No.30, Kancheepuram City Municipal Corporation, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.24444/2024/E1 and the consequential work order dated 09.10.2024 issued to the 3rd respondent for renovation of Perarignar Anna Bus Stand, Kancheepuram at a cost of Rs.80,00,000/-
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent has deliberately sought to disregard Rule 248 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Body Rules, 2023 which makes it necessary for the first respondent to obtain the prior sanction of the council. The first respondent, being a public authority, is bound by the principles of fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness in its tender evaluation process, and it is failure to adhere to
these principles warrants intervention. The first respondent issued the consequential work order to the third respondent which is ineligible. Hence, this Court may allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order.
4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that administrative sanction was accorded by the Director of Municipal Administration dated 22.07.2024. As per Rule 248-Table 2, is applicable to Kancheepuram City Municipal Corporation, the Commissioner is competent to execute works based on such sanction. Tenders were invited vide notice dated 07.08.2024, published in the Hindu and Dinamani on 26.07.2024. The 3rd respondent, a Class-I Contractor, was the sole eligible bidder and quoted 3.31% less than the estimate. The scrutiny committee approved the bid on 18.09.2024 in terms of Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000.
5. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The plea of violation of Rule 248 is untenable. The records establish that administrative sanction was granted by the competent authority, viz., the Director of Municipal Corporation and does not mandate separate council approval when Director of Municipal Administration sanction exists. The acceptance of a single tender is not per se illegal. Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Tenders Rules, 2000 permits the same when the rate is reasonable. The third respondent's quote being 3.31% below estimate, the decision of the Tender scrutiny committee cannot be termed arbitrary.
Further the work having been completed in March 2025 and the asset being put to public use, no public interest would be served by interfering at this stage. The allegation against the third respondent are unsubstantiated. He is a registered Class-I contractor and no material is placed to show past default. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition.
6. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered onion that the impugned work order dated 09.10.2024 does not suffer from any illegality or procedural infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 04-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rli
To
1. The Commissioner Kancheepuram City Municipal Corporation,Perarignar Anna Maligai, Hospital Road, Kancheepuram- 631 501.
2. Director Of Municipal Administration No.75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, M.R.C. Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai- 600 028.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
rli 04-06-2026