Allowed

M/S. Sri Thirumalai Industries v. the Chief Engineer/

Madras HC23 Aug 2022WP(MD)/12691/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order rejecting their request to set aside a penalty arising from delayed supply of materials. The Court found the impugned order cryptic, lacking reasons, and failing to consider petitioner's explanations. It allowed the petition, set aside the order, and remitted the matter to the first respondent for a detailed order within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Imple order set aside and remitted to first respondent for detailed order after considering representations and granting personal hearing within 12 weeks.

M/S. Sri Thirumalai Industries Vs the Chief… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.12691 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.08.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.12691 of 2012 and

¶7

M.P(MD)Nos.2 of 2012 and 1 of 2013

¶8

Sri.Thirumalai Industries, Represented by its Proprietor, T.Srinivasan. ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Chief Engineer/Distribution, TANGEDCO Ltd., (TNEB) Chennai South Region, 802, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶11

2.The Superintending Engineer, CEDC, Chengalpattu.

¶12

3.Sr.Resident Audit Officer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 802, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶15

1/6

¶16

W.P(MD)No.12691 of 2012

¶17

records relating to the order made in Lr.No:CED/CSR/EEP/AEEP 1/F.P.O.No:09/09-10/D 140/2012 dated 09-07-2012 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Pala Ramasamy for M/s.Profexs Associates For Respondents : Mr.S.Dheenadhayalan Standing Counsel

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Present Writ Petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the first respondent herein, under which the request of the petitioner for setting aside the penalty was rejected.

¶21

According to the petitioner, he was granted a purchase order by the first respondent herein for supply of 455 numbers of 9.14 meters RTS Grills by way of an order, dated 10.06.2009. The petitioner had successfully completed the supply of the said material with some delay and the said fact was also acknowledged and accepted by the respondent authorities by proceedings, dated 19.03.2010. In the said order, the first respondent has proceeded to recover a sum of Rs.16,344/-(Rupees Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Four only) for the said delay

¶22

2/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶24

W.P(MD)No.12691 of 2012

¶25

as per Clause No.13.0 towards liquidated damages. The said order has not been challenged by the writ petitioner. However, on 23.02.2011, the first respondent has passed another order, in which he has directed the writ petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,39,612/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Twelve only) on the basis of Resident Audit Officer's report. Thereafter, the petitioner had made a request to the first respondent herein to set aside the penalty. This was rejected by the order of the first respondent, dated 25.07.2011.

¶26

The said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.

¶27

9368 of 2011. By an order, dated 22.08.2011, this Court has permitted the writ petitioner to give detail representation to the respondents and the respondents were directed to dispose of the representation on merits and in accordance with law. Thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed on 09.07.2012. A perusal of the present impugned order indicates that it is nothing but a replica of the order, dated 25.07.2011, which is impugned in W.P(MD)No.9368 of 2011. The explanation submitted by the writ petitioner was not considered and the present impugned order has been passed. That apart, no reasons have been assigned why a sum of Rs.3,39,612/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Six Hundred

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶29

W.P(MD)No.12691 of 2012

¶30

and Twelve only) is sought to be recovered from the writ petitioner. The order is cryptic in nature and it does not refer to any of the clauses of the purchase order, under which the recovery proceedings have been initiated.

¶31

In view of the above said facts, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the first respondent herein. The first respondent is directed to pass a detailed order after considering the explanations submitted by the writ petitioner and after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

With the above said observations, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶33

23.08.2022

¶34

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gbg

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶36

4/6

¶37

W.P(MD)No.12691 of 2012

¶38

¶39

1.The Chief Engineer/Distribution, TANGEDCO Ltd., (TNEB) Chennai South Region, 802, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶40

2.The Superintending Engineer, CEDC, Chengalpattu.

¶41

3.Sr.Resident Audit Officer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 802, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶43

W.P(MD)No.12691 of 2012

¶44

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶45

gbg

¶46

Order made in W.P(MD)No.12691 of 2012

¶47

Dated: 23.08.2022

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

M/S. Sri Thirumalai Industries v. the Chief Engineer/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sri Thirumalai Industries v. the Chief Engineer/

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

Mariappan Vs Marudaiveeran (Died)

Surya Kumar, Vs the District Registrar (Admn.)

Pauniraj (Died), Vs Union of India

Chandramohan, Vs the Joint Commissioner

K.Ramalingam Vs the Assistant Executive

Tvs Agri Sciences Research Vs Appellate Authority/