M/S.Shree Senthil Andavar Chambers, v. The Deputy General Manager (Vigilance)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P(MD)No.2509 of 2026 M/s.Shree Senthil Andavar Chambers, Rep by its Proprietor K.Gowthaman, 3/2, Pudukkottai, Dasaraipatti Post, Oddanchatram, Dindigul-624614.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, 16, College Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006.
2.The Deputy General Manager (B&O), Business and Operation, State Bank of India, SBI Road, Trichy, Trichy District.
3.The Branch Manager, SME Branch, State Bank of India, S.K.A.A. Complex, 1st and 2nd Floor, 1/6
80 Feet Road, R.M.Colony, Dindigul.
4.The Regional Officer, Havell's India Ltd., WLYSIM Towers, A4 and B4, 3rd Floor, A.T.T. Colony, Near Hindu Office, Coimbatore.
5.Adam Power Solution, Rep by its Director, No.16/193.A, EMS Nagar, Kankarai, Thiruvattar Post, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of MANDAMUS directing the first and second respondents to initiate appropriate action against the third to fifth respondents for their illegal activities of cheating the petitioner and causing financial loss based on the representation of the petitioner dated 29.12.2025. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For R1 to R3 :
Mr.Anwar Sameem, Standing Counsel 2/6
O R D E R
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to initiate appropriate action against the third to fifth respondents for their illegal activities of cheating the petitioner and causing financial loss based upon the representation of the petitioner dated 29.12.2025.
2. From the records, it is seen that the petitioner has availed a loan from the third respondent Bank for putting up a solar power plant. The said solar power plant was sought to be installed by the fifth respondent private company.
3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the fifth respondent company was introduced by the third respondent Branch Manager, and the fifth respondent company caused huge financial loss to the writ petitioner by not completing the work. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for initiating action against the third to fifth respondents. 3/6
4. A perusal of the records reveals that almost 90% of the work has been completed and, at every stage, the amount were released by the third respondent in favour of the fifth respondent only upon the request of the petitioner. The balance amount has not been released so far. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the work carried out by the fifth respondent, it is open to him to initiate independent proceedings against the fifth respondent. The question of initiating any action against the third respondent does not arise. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to initiate appropriate action against the fifth respondent, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 02.02.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No pal 4/6
To 1.The Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, 16, College Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006.
2.The Deputy General Manager (B&O), Business and Operation, State Bank of India, SBI Road, Trichy, Trichy District.
3.The Branch Manager, SME Branch, State Bank of India, S.K.A.A. Complex, 1st and 2nd Floor, 80 Feet Road, R.M.Colony, Dindigul.
5/6
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
pal W.P(MD)No.2509 of 2026 02.02.2026 6/6