S.Muthukrishnan v. The State Of Tamilnadu,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 17.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY S.Muthukrishnan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector, Madurai District.
Madurai.
3.The Block Development Officer, Sedappatti Panchayat Union, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.
...Respondents
Writ Petitions are filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disburse the outstanding amount of Rs.16,56,553/- payable o the petitioner for supply of materials for laying the metal road in Sankaralingapuram to Soolapuram Village in Pappinayakkanpatti Village Panchayat Sedappatti Panchayat Union, Madurai District together with interest based on the petitioner's representation dated 21.02.2026 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Ramanathan For Respondents :Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader For R3 :M/s.K.Malathi, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the outstanding amount of Rs.16,56,553/-. 2.According to the petitioner, the petitioner is engaged in the supply of materials for laying the metal road in Sankaralingapuram to Sulapuram village at Papinayakanpatti Village Panchayat Sedapatti Panchayat Union, Madurai District. The amount due in respect of the supply has not been made until date. The petitioner therefore made a representation on 21.02.2026. Even thereafter there is no payment and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
3.When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader, taking notice on behalf of the respondents on the basis of the written instructions, would submit that the entire work order in respect of said work was given to one Seeni of Papinayaganpatti village and not to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any payment due with reference to the said work.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner along with the writ petition also, no work order, favoring the petitioner, is enclosed. If the petitioner has worked as an agent or as a subcontractor of the said Seeni, the petitioner has to work out his remedy with the said Seeni and even if any amount is due, only the person to whom the contract is given shall make a representation. Accordingly, keeping open the liberty of the petitioner as well as the said contractor to make a representation, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.
17.03.2026 NCC:Yes/No Ns To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector, Madurai District.
Madurai.
3.The Block Development Officer, Sedappatti Panchayat Union, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Ns 17.03.2026