Disposed

Pitchaimani v. The Commissioner

Madras HC13 Sept 2023WP(MD)/22237/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the delay in refunding security deposits after completing public works contracts. The High Court directed the Madurai Corporation to consider the petitioners' representations and make a decision on the refund within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent Corporation to consider petitioners' representations and take a decision on refund within twelve weeks.

Pitchaimani Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)Nos.22237 to 22239 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.22237 to 22239 of 2023

¶7

W.P(MD)No.22237 of 2023:- Pichaimani ... Petitioner Vs The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Madurai – 625 002. ...Respondent W.P(MD)No.22238 of 2023:- Balaji Construction, Through its Proprietor, Karunakaran, First Class Contractor, Madurai Corporation, No.15, Kalai Nagar third class Street, Kalai Nagar, Madurai – 625 017. ... Petitioner Vs The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation,

¶8

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

¶9

1/6

¶10

W.P(MD)Nos.22237 to 22239 of 2023

¶11

Aringar Anna Maligai, Madurai – 625 002. ...Respondent

¶12

W.P(MD)No.22239 of 2023:- C.Sathiyaseelan ... Petitioner Vs The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Madurai – 625 002. ...Respondent

¶13

PRAYER W.P(MD)No.22237 of 2023: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.07.2023 and direct the respondent to issue the deposit amount Rs.21,63,960/- which was deposited by the petitioner, in the name and style of Pichaimani First Class Contractor, and the petitioner's Contract licence No.Ma.Po. 2/23703/2019 and his registered Number is 125 for the public work for the period of 2019 to 2022.

¶14

PRAYER W.P(MD)No.22238 of 2023: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the

¶15

2/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)Nos.22237 to 22239 of 2023

¶18

petitioner's representation dated 18.07.2023 and direct the respondent to issue the deposit amount Rs.8,29,050/- which was deposited by the petitioner, in the name and style of Balaji Construction, First Class Contractor, and the petitioner's Contract licence No.Ma.Po.4/01183/2010 and his registered Number is 47 for the public work for the period of 2018 to 2020.

¶19

PRAYER W.P(MD)No.22239 of 2023: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.07.2023 and direct the respondent to issue the deposit amount Rs.13,60,819/- which was deposited by the petitioner, in the name and style of Sathiyaseelan First Class Contractor, and the petitioner's Contract licence No.Ma.Po.2/24956/2015 and his registered Number is 95 for the public work for the period of 2015 to 2020.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Poovalingam For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Kannan Standing Counsel

¶21

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners said to have performed certain contracts

¶23

in the respondent Corporation and completed the work assigned to

¶24

3/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)Nos.22237 to 22239 of 2023

¶27

them for the years 2019 to 2022, 2018 to 2020 and 2015 to 2020 respectively. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have completed their work as per the terms of the contract and the works have also been accepted by the respondent, the respondent Corporation has not refunded the deposit amount to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have submitted representations on 14.07.2023,18.07.2023 and 26.07.2023 and filed these writ petitions for a Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider their representations.

¶28

2.Mr.K.K.Kannan, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the respondent Corporation submits that an audit for the above period has not been completed and therefore, the amount deposited by the petitioners has not yet been returned to them.

¶29

3.Considering the limited prayer sought for by the

¶30

petitioners, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider the representations of the

¶31

4/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)Nos.22237 to 22239 of 2023

¶34

petitioners as per the terms and conditions of the contract and take a decision within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶35

13.09.2023

¶36

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes vrn To The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Madurai – 625 002.

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)Nos.22237 to 22239 of 2023

¶39

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶40

vrn

¶41

Common Order made in W.P(MD)Nos.22237 to 22239 of 2023

¶42

13.09.2023

¶43

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

Pitchaimani v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pitchaimani v. The Commissioner

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

Paramakudi Palani Murugan Auto Drivers Vs The District Collector

Ilangovan .T Vs The Commissioner

Suresh .P Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

Perumal Vs the District Collector

V.Amuthan @ Paraman Vs Sakthivel

Thamirabharani Tirunelveli Kalvai Vs Karthikeyan IAS