The General Manager v. The Managing Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR The General Manager, Represented by Arunkumar, Sunshine International Agritech, D.No.19, WD-12, ST-5 Company Street, Genguvarpatti, Theni District-625 203.

... Petitioner vs.

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, 91, St. Marys Road, Chennai-600 018.

2.The Regional Manager, TANFED, 2/479, Subbaiah Ginning Factory, Palani Road, Dindigul-624 010.

3.The Regional Manager, TANFED, 69, Compost Yard Street, Periakulam Road, Theni-625 531.

4.The Regional Manager, TANFED, Velmurugan Nagar, Namachivaya Nagar, Palanganatham Byepass, Madakukulam, Madurai -625 016.

... Respondents 1/5

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents, particularly 1st respondent to refund the earnest money of Rs.3 lakhs for purchase of "ORGANIC MANURE" in reference No. Reference No. 1286/2024/FM4, which was paid by our company on 07.12.2024 through online payment, by consider the petitioner representations dated 09.05.2025, 03.03.2026 and 22.04.2026.

For Petitioner :Mr.U.Uthaya Kumar For R1, R3 and R4:Mr.B.Aravind Srevatsa For R2 :No appearance *****

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to refund the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner pursuant to a tender notification issued by the first respondent. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that, in response to a tender notification floated by the first respondent inviting bids for the procurement of organic manure, the petitioner submitted his bid and deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards Earnest Money Deposit (EMD).

2/5

3.Subsequently, the said tender notification was challenged before this Court in a Public Interest Litigation, inter alia, on the ground that the conditions contained therein were arbitrary and illegal. Taking note of the challenge, the Hon'ble Division Bench directed the first respondent to maintain status quo until further orders.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that, in view of the status quo order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the first respondent does not intend to proceed further with the tender process.

5.It is evident that, owing to the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the tender process has not progressed further and the petitioner's request for refund of the Earnest Money Deposit has also remained unaddressed. Once the first respondent has taken a decision not to proceed with the tender, there is no justification for retaining the Earnest Money Deposit furnished by the petitioner. 3/5

6.In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the Earnest Money Deposit.

7.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to refund the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.In the event of default, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of default till the date of actual payment.

9.Liberty is reserved to the respondents to issue a fresh tender notification, if so advised, in accordance with law. 9.There shall be no order as to costs.

Index :Yes / No 09.06.2026 NCC :Yes / No cmr 4/5

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

cmr 09.06.2026 5/5