K.Jagadees Balan Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

¶1

WA(MD)No.518 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 08.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

WA(MD)No.518 of 2026 and CMP(MD)Nos.4691 and 4693 of 2026

K.Jagadees Balan

... Appellant

Vs.

The Additional Chief Secretary Transport Department Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai - 600 009.

¶11

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (KUM) Limited, 27, Railway Station New Road, Kumbakonam - 612001.

¶12

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (COVAI) Limited, 37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore - 641043.

¶13

The Chief Financial Officer, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (KUM) Limited 27, Railway Station New Road, Kumbakonam - 612001.

¶14

The Human Resource Department,

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

WA(MD)No.518 of 2026

¶18

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (KUM) Limited, 27, Railway Station New Road, Kumbakonam - 612001.

¶19

The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (KUM) Limited, 27, Railway Station New Road, Kumbakonam - 612001.

¶20

The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (KUM) Limited, Periyamilaguparai, Trichy - 620001.

¶21

The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (KUM) Limited, Marudhupathy, Managiri Road Karaikudi - 630307.

¶22

The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (KUM) Limited, Pillaithanneerpandal Thirumayam Road, Pudukottai - 622001. ... Respondents

¶23

PRAYER :- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.(MD)No.15146 of 2025 dated 26.11.2025.

¶24

For Appellant : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For R1 : Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader For R2 : M/s.Madhuri Donti Reddy, Standing Counsel For R3 to R5, R8 & R9 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Standing Counsel For R6 & R7 : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro, Standing Counsel

¶25

2/7

¶26

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

¶27

WA(MD)No.518 of 2026

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶30

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order made in W.P(MD)No.15146 of 2025 dated 26.11.2025.

¶31

The appellant was the standing counsel for the respondent corporation. Since his fee dues was not settled, he filed the abovesaid writ petition. In the writ petition, the matter was referred to mediation for amicable settlement and the matter was also settled before the Mediator. Recording such settlement agreement, the writ petition was disposed of by the order impugned. As against that order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there was a misrepresentation in the Alternative Disputes Resolution and

¶33

Mediation and the Writ Court failed to see that the corporation misrepresented in the mediation and gave a wrong calculation which is against G.O(Ms)No.56, Transport (D) Department, and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶34

3/7

¶35

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

¶36

WA(MD)No.518 of 2026

¶37

The mediation is the process where the parties themselves after deliberations voluntarily enter into a settlement agreement with certain conditions. A mediated settlement agreement is binding on the parties concerned and enforceable as a court decree. The Writ Court has also extracted Clause 7 of the settlement agreement where the parties herein have specifically averred as follows:

¶38

'' 7. By signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to W.P(MD)No.15146 of 2025 and all disputes and difference in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties hereto through the process of conciliation / Mediation. ''

¶39

Once the parties have entered into the settlement agreement

¶40

in the mediation, they are estopped from disputing the same unless any one of the grounds namely, fraud, corruption, impersonation, or the subject matter was not fit for mediation, is made out. In this case, none of the grounds is made out for interference. The appellant has assailed the settlement agreement on the ground that the corporation

¶41

4/7

¶42

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

¶43

WA(MD)No.518 of 2026

¶44

misrepresented and gave wrong calculation which is against G.O(Ms)No.

¶45

In our view, having agreed to the terms of settlement agreement and signed the same, the appellant cannot take such a contention in the appeal stage. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned.

¶46