Latha v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-08-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA and WMP No.33456 of 2025 Latha W/o. Ravichandran.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

2.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Pallipet Panchayat Union, Pallipet.

Respondent(s) PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the proceedings of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.176/ 2023/ A7 dated 19.07.2025 quash the same. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.P.Krishnan For Respondent(s):

Mr.V.Manoharan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, Government Advocate for R2

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the proceedings of the second respondent passed in Na.Ka.No.176/2023/A7, dated 19.07.2025 and quash the same.

2.Mr.V.Manoharan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for R1 and Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for R2.

3.By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4.The petitioner is a Civil Contractor by profession and has been carrying on both private and Government contractual works. She participated in the E-tender dated 16.04.2025. On 17.04.2025, she was awarded the contract for laying roads and construction of New Panchayat Office Building. Whileso, the second respondent, without a show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated

19.07.2025, cancelling the contract awarded to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that as the impugned cancellation order resulted in serious civil consequences, the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of the contract. 6.The facts of the case are not disputed. A reading of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner was neither served a show cause notice nor afforded an opportunity of hearing before cancelling the contract awarded on 17.04.2025. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the impugned order results in severe civil consequences, the petitioner is entitled to a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing. As the impugned order is passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order.

7.Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.176/2023/A7, dated 19.07.2025, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13-08-2025 sli Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To

1. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

2.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Pallipet Panchayat Union, Pallipet.

N.MALA J.

sli and WMP No.33456 of 2025 13-08-2025