Dismissed

M/s.Ananthakumar and Co. v. The Chief General Manager

Madras HC23 Sept 2022WP/3353/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to approve the petitioner's submitted list of Project Affected Persons (PAPs), the High Court held that the list was recommended by the Corporation. The Court concluded the petitioner could not dispute the Corporation's list or seek approval for their own, dismissing the petition. The writ is closed with no costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to approve the petitioner's list; writ petition closed.

M/s.Ananthakumar and Co. Vs The Chief General Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.3353 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

W.P. No.3353 of 2022 and WMP.No.3468 of 2022

¶7

M/s.Ananthakumar & Co., Rep by its Managing Partner A.Kalaiselvi No.2, 1/4th Street, Arul Jothi Nagar Kattukollai, Vadalur (PO) Kurinjipadi (Tk) Cuddalore District - 607 303.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Chief General Manager Unit Head, Mines-IA Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Ltd., Neyveli - 607 807.

¶11

2.The General Manager Operations, Mines-IA Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Ltd., Neyveli - 607 807.

¶12

3.The Chief General Manager LA-R&R Department Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Ltd., Neyveli - 607 807. ... Respondents

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶14

W.P.No.3353 of 2022

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to approve the list of PAP's submitted by the petitioner by his letter dated 06.01.2021 t enable the petitioner to complete work pursuant to Agt.No.MIA/NAMC/PRD/A009/90600871/AGT12/21-22, dated 01.02.2022 and consequently direct them to follow the terms of the Tender Special Conditions or any other or direction as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijay Anand

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.N.Nithianandam Standing Counsel for NLC

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Though the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to approve the list of Project Affected Persons [PAPs] submitted by it along with its letter dated 06.10.2021, Mr.M.Vijay Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he would employ the Project Affected Persons, if

¶20

a list of such persons is provided by the respondent-Corporation.

¶21

2.Mr.N.Nithianantham, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶23

W.P.No.3353 of 2022

¶24

respondent-Corporation would submit that the list of Project Affected Persons have already been given to the petitioner and the petitioner disputes the correctness of the same. It is further submitted that the respondentCorporation has personally approached those 32 Project Affected Persons and has obtained willingness from 22 persons to work under the respondentCorporation in the subject project, and this was informed to the petitioner too.

¶25

In my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot dispute the correctness of the list given by the Corporation. It appears that the list of contract employees / PAPs are the names recommended by the respondentCorporation to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot dispute the list provided by the respondent-Corporation and seek approval of his own list. Thus, the Mandamus as prayed for cannot be issued.

¶26

Recording the same, the writ petition is closed. It is open to the petitioner to employ those 22 persons whose names were recommended by the Corporation and who had even extended their willingness to join the

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶28

W.P.No.3353 of 2022

¶29

contractual employment under the respondent-Corporation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

23.09.2022

¶31

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order ds

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

W.P.No.3353 of 2022

R.SUBRAMANIAN. J.,

W.P.No.3353 of 2022

23.09.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5

M/s.Ananthakumar and Co. v. The Chief General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Ananthakumar and Co. v. The Chief General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Subbathal Vs the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.

Orion Ventures, Mechanized Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity

T.Govindaraju Vs The District collector

Devi.C Vs The State of TamilNadu

R.Kanivannan Vs Regional Passport Officer

FMR.1, Kaveripattinam Paruvatha Rajakula Fishermen Cooperative Society, Vs The Collector