← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/13124/2024dismissed

Velmurugan .N v. The Special Commissioner

2025-01-10Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.01.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P(MD)No.11631 of 2024 N.Velmurugan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Special Commissioner Foreign Tamil People Welfare and Rehabilitation Office, Chepakkam, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Special Deputy Collector, Mandapam Rahabilitation Camp, Mandapam.

...Respondents

Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent in NAKA 1/627/2023 dated 14.06.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to continue his contract of food supplying to the inmates present at Srilankan Tamils at Mandapam Camp and also directing the respondents to compensate the loss of the reputation by the false accusation of the third respondent. 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Suresh Kumar Isaac Paul For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Gandhi Raj Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent, dated 14.06.2023, thereby, rejected the request made by the petitioner to revoke the cancellation of work order to supply the food to the refugee camp.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The petitioner is a Contractor for supplying the food for the inmates at the refugee camp. In the year 2006, the first respondent floated tender notification for supplying of food to the refugee camp. The petitioner participated in the tender and he was declared as lowest bidder and awarded contract for supplying of food. The period of contract is from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. However, subsequently, the first respondent extended the petitioner's contract from 01.04.2007 to until further orders. Accordingly, the petitioner supplied the food to the refugee camp till 27.03.2022. While being 2/6

so, the third respondent informed the petitioner not to supply the food from the next day i.e., on 28.03.2022, thereafter, appointed another contractor for supplying the food. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to reconsider the cancellation of work order and allot the contract for supplying the food to the refugee camp. Since the period of work was expired and as such, the petitioner was informed that not to supply from 28.03.2022. On the representation, the third respondent conducted an enquiry and replied that on the complaint received from the refugees in respect of the quality of the food, the petitioner was stopped from supplying of food.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations levelled against the petitioner cannot be sustained since the petitioner was supplying the food from 01.04.2006 to 27.03.2022 without any allegations in respect of quality of the food. All of a sudden, supply of the food by the petitioner was stopped without any notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend the allegations. As stated supra, the period of work order got expired on 31.03.2007, even then, the petitioner was permitted to supply the food till 27.03.2022 therefore, the third respondent did not pass any order to cancel the work order since the period of work order got already expired. Therefore, there 3/6

is no question of violation of principles of natural justice. However, without floating any tender, simply the respondents permitted the third person to supply the food to the refugee camp.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents are taking steps to float the tender for supply of food.

6. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the third respondent and it is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the third respondent is directed to float the tender for supply of food for the refugee camp within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to participate in the tender notification. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No 10.01.2025 Speaking/Non Speaking order am 4/6

To 1.The Special Commissioner Foreign Tamil People Welfare and Rehabilitation Office, Chepakkam, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Special Deputy Collector, Mandapam Rahabilitation Camp, Mandapam.

5/6

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

am 10.01.2025 6/6