Dismissed¶23

Urbaser S.A.U v. Greater Chennai Corporation

Madras HC10 Nov 2025WP/32699/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Urbaser S.A.U vs Greater Chennai Corporation (Superintending Engineer, Solid Waste Management Department) - Article 226 certiorari challenge to blacklisting notice Ref. S.W.M.C. No. A7/4640/2023 dated 19.06.2025 (email 23.06.2025) arising from petitioner's withdrawal of bid under RFQ-cum-RFP dated 31.07.2024; recorded assurance by Additional Advocate General that blacklisting confined to future agreements/contracts within time fixed under impugned order and would not affect existing contracts including Package II; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, no costs; W.M.P. Nos. 36614 and 36616 of 2025 closed; Bench: V. Lakshminarayanan, J.; Decision date: 10.11.2025.

What the court decided

Urbaser S.A.U Vs Greater Chennai Corporation — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P. No. 32699 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

W.P. No. 32699 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P. Nos. 36614 and 36616 of 2025

Urbaser S.A.U

…Petitioner

Vs.

Greater Chennai Corporation Superintending Engineer Solid Waste Management Department Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Building, Chennai-600003. ...Respondent

¶12

Prayer : This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records leading to the issuance of the notice bearing Ref. No. S.W.M.C. No. A7/4640/2023 dated 19.06.2025 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Solid Waste Management Department, Greater Chennai Corporation vide email dated 23.06.2025, and quash the same and consequently restrain the Respondent from taking any further action on the Petitioner's withdrawal from the bid made pursuant to the respondent's request for qualification-cum-request for proposal dated 31.07.2024.

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel Mr.J.Akhila

¶14

For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, AAG Asst. by Mrs. P.T.Ramadevi, St. C.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. No. 32699 of 2025

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner reported, on

¶20

instructions from the learned counsel on record, Ms.Akhila, who is in turn being instructed by the Authorized Representative, who is present in Court today, to withdraw the writ petition.

¶21

The statement of Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent that the impugned blacklisting will not affect the execution of Package II in Chennai, being executed by the petitioner. This statement is recorded. In other words, the blacklisting will be confined only the for the purpose of future agreements and contracts within the time fixed under the impugned order. It will not be used against the petitioner for existing contracts.

¶22