Dismissed¶33

R.Pugazhanthi, v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest

Madras HC7 Jan 2026WA/3973/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal dismissed by Madras High Court (07.01.2026); Clause 15 Letters Patent appeal against Single Judge order dated 10.09.2025 in W.P.No.19589 of 2025; Article 14 violation not made out in contractual dispute; writ jurisdiction limited to cases of State arbitrariness; reliance on ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553; refusal of extension of time up to 30.6.2026 for cutting remaining trees under forest contract; appellant R.Pugazhanthi vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and other Forest Department officials, Villupuram; no costs; interim application closed.

What did the court decide?

None; appeal dismissed as without merits, with no order as to costs, and the interim application (CMP No.32200 of 2025) closed. ¶33

R.Pugazhanthi, Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; appeal dismissed as without merits, with no order as to costs, and the interim application (CMP No.32200 of 2025) closed.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, whose request for further time (up to 30.6.2026) to complete his contractual obligation of cutting remaining trees was refused, can obtain relief in writ jurisdiction on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in a contractual dispute.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The appellant, having failed to make out a case of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the matter of a contractual dispute, is not entitled to any relief whatsoever, in view of the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.

¶27

Key takeaways

Even in a contractual dispute the hands of the writ court are not completely tied: in an appropriate case, where the State authorities have acted in an arbitrary manner, the writ court may step in.ratio¶32
The present case is not one where writ jurisdiction is to be invoked in favour of the appellant, who failed to fulfill the contractual obligation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Coram: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, author, and G. Arul Murugan J.) dismisses Writ Appeal WA No. 3973 of 2025 (with CMP No.32200 of 2025) preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Single Judge's order dated 10.09.2025 in W.P.No.19589 of 2025. The appellant, facing difficulty in completing his contractual obligation of cutting remaining trees, had sought further time up to 30.6.2026, which the learned Single Judge declined to grant. Held, relying on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553: having failed to make out a case of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in a contractual dispute, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. While the writ court's hands are not completely tied in contractual matters and it may intervene where State authorities acted arbitrarily, this case — where the appellant failed to fulfil the contractual obligation per the contract's terms — is not one for invoking writ jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; interim application closed. Decision dated 07.01.2026.

¶1

W.A.No.3973 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.01.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶9

WA No. 3973 of 2025 and CMP No.32200 of 2025

¶10

R.Pugazhanthi, S/o. Ranganathan, Mettu Street, Sindhamani, Vikiravandi Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶11

Appellant(s)

¶12

¶13

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest Headquarters Building, Near Kannikapuram Check Post, Vellacherry Main Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

¶14

The Chief Conservator of Forest, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶15

The Forest Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶16

Respondent(s)

¶17

_______________ Page 1 of 5_

¶18

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

¶19

PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the

¶20

W.A.No.3973 of 2025

¶21

PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 10.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.19589 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge.

¶22

For Appellant(s): Mr.K.Krishnan for M/s.L.Karthiga

¶23

For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶26

Challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge is premised mainly on the ground that, even though the appellant had expressed various difficulties in completing his contractual obligation of cutting remaining trees and sought further time up to 30.6.2026, the same was not accepted by the learned Single Judge.

¶27

In our view, the appellant, having failed to make out a case of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the matter of a contractual dispute, is not entitled to any relief whatsoever in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd¹ .

¶28

1 (2004) 3 SCC 553

¶29

_______________ Page 2 of 5_

¶30

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

¶31

W.A.No.3973 of 2025

¶32

No doubt, even in the matter of contractual dispute, the hands of the writ court are not completely tied and in appropriate case, where the State authorities have acted in an arbitrary manner, the writ court may step in. The present case is not the one where writ jurisdiction is to be invoked in favour of the appellant who failed to fulfill the contractual obligation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.

¶33

Appeal is, therefore, without merits and dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application stands closed.

¶34

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 07.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶35

_______________ Page 3 of 5_

¶36

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

¶37

W.A.No.3973 of 2025

¶38

To:

¶39

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest Headquarters Building, Near Kannikapuram Check Post, Vellacherry Main Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

¶40