Petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the quality of work done by a contractor for sporting facilities under a work order issued by the Corporation. The Court dismissed the petition as an interference in contractual execution, noting the Corporation was satisfied with the work.
W.P.No.15533 of 2020 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.15533 of 2020
Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to enquire the petitioner's representation dated 23.09.2019 and take back the maintenance and improvement works of the Skating Rink court situate at Zone No.11, Division No.151, located in TCG Park, Porur, forthwith, as contemplated in Rule 20 of the terms and conditions of the work order incorporated in fourth respondent's letter A.Tu.Na.Ka.No.A3/10444/2018 dated 25.02.2019 addressed to the fifth respondent at the time of entrusting the park to the sixth respondent, as the sixth respondent has violated the norms of the work order within the stipulated time.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Thiagarajan
For Respondents : Mr.G.K.Muthukumar
Special Govt. Pleader
for respondent-1
Mr.R.Gopinath
for respondents 2 to 5
Mr.AR.M.Arunachalam
for respondent-6
ORDER
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
This petition is by busybodies seeking to interfere in a work order issued by the Corporation to a private party.
the work undertaken by the contractor and, in such circumstances, the petitioners' grievance cannot be appreciated. It is not as if no work has been done. The petitioners probably expected work of a higher quality which may not have been in the contemplation of the Corporation even while awarding the contract. However, to the extent that the petitioners are citizens and are entitled to aspire for better conditions, the Corporation should make every endeavour to improve the conditions at the relevant complex.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kpl
To
1. The Secretary
Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
+1cc to Mr.AR.M.Arunachalam, Advocate, S.R.No.24923
W.P.No.15533 of 2020
PL(CO)
RN(11/06/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should interfere in a work order merely because petitioners subjectively find the quality of construction inadequate.
Whether the Corporation's satisfaction with the work done precludes the petitioner's grievance under Article 226.
Nithya
Murugammal Sriram
R.Hariharan
Karthik B
Kartik V.V
R.Nalini
Sanjib Banerjee
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
