Alagappan @ Alagappan Poosari v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Alagappan @ Alagappan Poosari ... Petitioner vs.

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collector Office Campus, 3.The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Office, 4.The District Forest Officer, Madurai Forest Division, Madurai 02.

5.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District 6.The Revenue Inspector, Muduvaarpatti Firka, 1/6

7.The Village Administrative Officer, 66 Kodangipatti Group, 8.The Panchayat Secretary, Paraipatti, Vadipatti Taluk, ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 5th and 8th Respondents to refund the total sum of Rs. 1,29,200/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred only) paid by the petitioner towards the auction, forthwith, along with appropriate compensation for the loss suffered by the Petitioner. The Petitioner further request that, if any future auction is conducted regarding the said trees, the Petitioner may be given priority based on the petitioner's representation dated 28.01.2026.

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Pratheesh For R1, R2 and R4 to R8 :Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R3 :Mr.R.Ragavendran Government Advocate ***** 2/6

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to return the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) amount of Rs.1,29,200/- deposited by the petitioner at the time of participating in the tender.

2.Heard Mr. P. Pratheesh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P. Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2, and 4 to 8; and Mr. R. Ragavendran, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of the third respondent.

3.The petitioner states that, though he was the successful bidder, the contract was not awarded to him, and the third respondent subsequently cancelled the tender. Therefore, the petitioner claims entitlement to the return of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) amount. In this regard, the petitioner had also submitted a representation to the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that no steps have been taken to consider the said representation as on date. 3/6

4.Mr. R. Ragavendran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner's representation dated 28.01.2026 would be considered on merits by the third respondent within the time frame fixed by this Court. The said submission is taken on record.

5.In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.01.2026 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

6.The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four

(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.There shall be no order as to costs.

Index :Yes / No 27.04.2026 NCC :Yes / No cmr 4/6

To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collector Office Campus, 3.The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Office, 4.The District Forest Officer, Madurai Forest Division, Madurai 02.

5.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District 6.The Revenue Inspector, Muduvaarpatti Firka, 7.The Village Administrative Officer, 66 Kodangipatti Group, 8.The Panchayat Secretary, Paraipatti, Vadipatti Taluk, 5/6

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

cmr 27.04.2026 6/6