M/S.Makwuds India (P) Ltd., v. State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN M/s.Makwuds India (P) Ltd., Formerly Known as Makwuds Packaging (P) Ltd., F8 SIPCOT Industrial Park, Sriperumputhur-602 105, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sinju Abdul Kharim ... Appellant -Vs1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Collectorate, Dindigul.

3.The District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal Division, Dindigul District.

4.The Tahsildar, Sriperumpudhur Taluk, Sriperumpudhur.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 04.09.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.4280 of 2018 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant : Mr.V.Muthumani For Respondents : Mr.V.OM.Prakash, Government Advocate

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.] This intra-Court appeal is preferred as against the order dated 04.09.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.4280 of 2018, whereby the Writ Court rejected the request of the appellant / writ petitioner seeking to consider his representation. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3.It is seen that the appellant had entered into an agreement on 21.01.2005 with the 3rd respondent / District Forest Officer in respect of cutting and supplying trees to the factory for manufacturing packing cases. Admittedly, the contract period was one year and since the appellant did not complete the work, penalty was imposed on 04.05.2007 for non-removal of the trees.

Admittedly, the appellant had not challenged the penalty imposed on him. However, leaving the matter to rest, after the period of nearly 10 years, he had submitted a representation on 31.01.2018, seeking extension of time of one year granted in the contract.

4.The Writ Court has found that since the appellant had not completed the contract, penalty was imposed and the appellant has not challenged the penalty imposed and has not sought for extension of time at an earlier point of time, however, after long lapse of period, he wants to reopen stale issue in the guise of submitting representation. The Writ Court has rightly held that such request cannot be considered allowing the stale issues to be reopened. 5.In view of the above, we see no error or infirmity in the order passed by the Writ Court, since the issue reached finality as early as in the year 2005 itself. Thus, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. [S.M.S, J.] & [G.A.M., J.] 14.08.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Yuva

To 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Collectorate, Dindigul.

3.The District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal Division, Dindigul District.

4.The Tahsildar, Sriperumpudhur Taluk, Sriperumpudhur.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

AND G.ARUL MURUGAN , J.

Yuva 14.08.2025