Dismissed¶29

Gee Pee Constructions v. Pavayee

Madras HC9 Oct 2025WMP/22340/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleading application (W.M.P.) under Article 226 dismissed; applicant held neither proper nor necessary party; beneficiary of contract not entitled to lay road over private property merely on award of contract; ownership of road (contractor vs Government) is subject matter of pending W.P.No.6901 of 2025; PMGSY road contractor; Wet Mix Macadam; 2900 mtrs / 2700 mtrs completed; Survey No.379/6; Thalaivasal Taluk / Thalaivasal Panchayat Union; Salem District; parties: Gee Pee Constructions (petitioner), Pavayee, G.P.Arularashu, G.Anbu Kumar, District Collector, Assistant Collector DRDA, Tahsildar, Block Development Officer; Judge: V. Lakshminarayanan; decided 09.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

A beneficiary under a contract is not, merely because the contract has been awarded, entitled to lay a road over property belonging to private persons.

Gee Pee Constructions Vs Pavayee — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.M.P.No.22340 of 2025 in W.P.No.6901 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.10.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

W.M.P.No.22340 of 2025

¶7

¶8

W.P.No.6901 of 2025

¶9

Gee Pee Constructions Salem Corporation, DRDA and High -Way Contractor, 89 /130, Thathampatti, Salem 14. .. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

Pavayee

¶12

G.P.Arularashu

¶13

G.Anbu Kumar

¶14

The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶15

The Assistant Collector, District Rural Development Agency, Salem.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Thalaivasal Taluk, Salem District.

¶17

Page Nos.1/4

¶18

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

¶19

W.M.P.No.22340 of 2025 in W.P.No.6901 of 2025

¶20

¶21

The Block Development Officer, Thalaivasal Panchayat Union, Thalaivasal Post, Salem District. .. Respondents

¶22

Prayer : The Writ Miscellaneous Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to implead the petitioner as 5^th respondent in W.P.No.6901 of 2025.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents : Mr.V.Ravichandran for R1 to R3 Mrs.C.Meera Arumugham Additional Government Pleader for R4 to R6 Mr.M.Rajendiran Additional Government Pleader for R4

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner is a road contractor. He claims to have been benefited with a contract to lay a road under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. It seems that while implementing the work order, he has to complete 2900 mts., utilizing Wet Mix Macadam. He has completed 2700 mts so far. The balance remains to be done. As the contract runs over Survey No.379/6, the impleading petitioner claims that the pendency of the writ petition is affecting his work.

¶26

Page Nos.2/4

¶27

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

¶28

W.M.P.No.22340 of 2025 in W.P.No.6901 of 2025

¶29

The petitioner is the beneficiary under the contract. Merely because the contract has been awarded, it does not mean that he is entitled to lay a road over the property that belongs to private persons. Whether the road belongs to the petitioner or to the Government is the main subject matter in the writ petition. The presence of the petitioner is neither going to help, nor his absence will detract the finding to be given by this Court. I do not find his presence necessary or essential, as he is neither a proper nor a necessary party. Hence, this Writ Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.

¶30

09.10.2025

¶31

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No ms

¶32

¶33