A contractor sought mandamus directing a Municipality to refund EMD and withheld amounts after his work order was cancelled and he was blacklisted. The Court found the claim was raised only after nine years, that the petitioner had breached the contract by not completing work despite extensions, and dismissed the writ petition with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
Writ Petition(MD)No.14280 of 2022
M.M.Cleetus .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, St.George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai.
4.The Commissioner, Kulithurai Municipality, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the petitioner's EMD amount of Rs.3,34,000/-, 5% of the withheld amount of Rs.12,07,177/- balance bill amount for the work done of Rs.89,800/- totally Rs.16,30,977/- base on the petitioner's representation dated 29.10.2021 and pass orders within the time stipulated by this Court.
1/7
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Jeya Priya Government Advocate (for R1 to R3) Mr.P.Aathimoola Pandian (for R4)
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus to the respondents to disburse the petitioner's EMD amount of Rs.3,34,000/-, 5% of the withheld amount of Rs.12,07,177/- balance bill amount for the work done of Rs.89,800/- totally Rs.16,30,977/- base on the petitioner's representation dated 29.10.2021 and pass orders within the time stipulated by this Court.
2/7
account of the fact that the fourth respondent had not handed over the possession of the property and the petitioner was able to begin construction only after removal of 10 to 12 trees standing on the site.
3/7
4/7
Since the petitioner had not completed the tender work as per the agreement even after extension, he is not entitled to refund of the EMD amount, as it is a violation of the terms of the agreement.
time, despite two extensions as per the terms of the contract, he had forfeited the EMD. Further, the respondents have been constrained to engage the third party to complete the construction. In this circumstance, I find no merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
20.11.2025
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes Rmk
To
1.The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, St.George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai.
6/7
P.T.ASHA, J.
Rmk
Writ Petition(MD)No.14280 of 2022
20.11.2025
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the EMD and balance amounts nine years after cancellation of the work order for breach of contract.
Whether forfeiture of the EMD was justified under the contract terms given the petitioner's failure to complete work despite extensions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.M.Cleetus
The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai
The Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai
The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Tirunelveli
The Commissioner, Kulithurai Municipality, Kanyakumari District
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
