Disposed

C.P.Senthilkumar v. The Principal Secretary to

Madras HC7 Feb 2018WP/23865/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking a mandamus for an inquiry into alleged fraud and collusion regarding highway contracts in Tamil Nadu, the Court directed the Director General to consider the petitioner's representation, hold a hearing, and pass a final order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Director General to consider the petitioner's representation, conduct a hearing, and pass a final order on merits within eight weeks.

C.P.Senthilkumar Vs The Principal Secretary to — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 07.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.23865 of 2017
C.P.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Highways Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General,
Highways Department,
Integrated Chief Engineers' Office,
HRS Campus, 76 Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600 025.
3. The Chief Engineer,
Highways Department,
Construction and Maintenance
Integrated Chief Engineers' office,
HRS Campus, 76, Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.
4.The Superintending Engineer (H)
Construction and Management,
Highways department – Coimbatore Circle,
Coimbaore -18.
5. The Superintending Engineer (H),
Construction and Management,
Highways Department – Trichy Circle,
Trichy – 20.

¶6

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶7

M.Pandithurai,

¶8

Proprietor, M/s. Hari Waylines, No.346, Periyar Nagar, Rajagopalapuram, Pudukottai.

¶9

M/s. Rishi Enterprises, Partnership Firm, rep. By its Partners, No.1028, Periyar Nagar, Raja Gopalapuram, Pudukottai. ...Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct enquiry into the fraudulent activities committed by the registered contractors viz., respondents 6 and 7 and the officials colluded with them relating to the award of all contracts in both names in the entire State of Tamil Nadu and to take action on them, in accordance with law, including blacklisting by considering the petitioner's representation dated 26.08.2017 within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Neelakandan

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5 Mr.K.V.Babu for R6 Ms.N.Lavanya for R7.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the 1^st to 3^rd respondents to conduct enquiry into the fraudulent activities made by the registered contractors viz., respondents 6 & 7 and the officials colluded with them relating to the award of all contracts in both names in the entire State of Tamilnadu in accordance with law and also by blacklisting them, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 26.08.2017.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and learned counsels appearing for 6^th and 7^th respondents.

¶16

The petitioner claims to be a contractor in the Highways Department. He has made a complaint against the 6^th and 7^th respondents, who are also Contractors under the same Department, as if they are getting contracts in one way or the other in

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

anyone of their names with the collusion of the officials of the Highways Department. Such complaint was made by the petitioner on 26.08.2017.

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that
the said complaint is still pending and not yet considered by
the respondents 1 to 3. 5. This Court at this stage, is not
expressing any view on the merits of the complaint made by the
petitioner as it is for the concerned officials viz., the 2 nd
respondent to consider and decide. Accordingly, this Writ
Petition is disposed of only with a direction to the 2 nd
respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner
dated 26.08.2017 and pass orders on the same on merits and in
accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, the
respondents 6 and 7 and other concerned officials, against whom,
the petitioner has made the allegation. The 2 nd respondent will
complete the enquiry and pass final order within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It
is open to all parties to place the material documents in
support of their contentions before the 2 nd respondent at the
time of enquiry. No costs.
Sd/
Assistant Registrar
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Highways Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General,
Highways Department,
Integrated Chief Engineers' Office,
HRS Campus, 76 Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.
3. The Chief Engineer,
Highways Department,
Construction and Maintenance
Integrated Chief Engineers' office,
HRS campus, 76, Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy,Chennai – 600 025.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

4.The Superintending Engineer (H) Construction and Management, Highways department – Coimbatore Circle, Coimbaore -18.

¶22

The Superintending Engineer (H), Construction and Management, Highways Department – Trichy Circle, Trichy – 20.

¶23

+2cc to Mr.R.Neelakandan, Advocate SR.No.9346
+1cc to Mr.K.V.Balu, Advocate SR.No.9359
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.No.9782
W.P.No.23865 of 2017
SDR 19.02.2018

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.P.Senthilkumar v. The Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P.Senthilkumar v. The Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaveriamma @ Kavamma Vs The Chairman (Tangedco)

M/s. Maruthi Construction Vs The Secretary

M.Kumar, Proprietor Vs The Commissioner

Mrs.G.Revathi, Vs The Revenue Divisional

M/s.Sri Ramana Scan Centre Vs The State of Tamil nadu

L.Balaji, Vs The District Collector