Kanagaraj .S v. The Managing Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH W.P.(MD)No.20257 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.17184 of 2024 S.Kanagaraj ... Petitioner -vs1.The Managing Director, THADCO, No.31, Senatop Road, Teynampet, Chennai - 600018.

2.The Executive Engineer, THADCO, Reserve Line Road, Elanthakulam, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli - 627002.

3.D.Palraj ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order issued by the 3rd Respondent vide his Proceedings in Letter No. 341/2021 /DB dated 31.07.2024 and quash the same as illegal. 1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, Government Advocate (R1 & R2) Mr.P.Jeyasankar (R3)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order issued by the 3rd Respondent vide his Proceedings in Letter No. 341/2021 /DB dated 31.07.2024, thereby terminated the petitioner's contract work for his slow progress of the work awarded to him.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Class-I contractor and he was awarded the contract work for construction of boys hostel in Srivilliputtur and the work order was also issued to that effect on 10.10.2023 and the cite was handed over to the petitioner on 09.12.2023. However, the third respondent earmarked the site only on 03.01.2024 due to certain objection from others and the petitioner also commenced the work therefrom. There was some delay on the part of the petitioner in the contract work due to some personal reasons and it was also duly intimated to the third respondent. Due to previous enmity of some other contract, the bill amount 2/4

has not been paid and a complaint was also lodged before the first respondent. Consequent to that, the third respondent issued the proceedings dated 10.07.2024 imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- for the delayed work and also the impugned order came to be passed terminating the contract work.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner's contract work was terminated in midway and the work has been completed by the Department itself and hence, nothing survives for further adjudication and this writ petition has become infructuous.

4. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, this writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

17.03.2025 NCC : Yes/No (1/2) Index : Yes / No sm 3/4

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

sm TO:- 1.The Managing Director, THADCO, No.31, Senatop Road, Teynampet, Chennai - 600018.

2.The Executive Engineer, THADCO, Reserve Line Road, Elanthakulam, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli - 627002.

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.20257 of 2024 (1/2) Dated:

17.03.2025 4/4