Bright Advertising Vs Secretary

¶1

WP No. 33389 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WP No. 33389 of 2025

¶7

Bright Advertising A Registered Partnership Firm, Rep By its Authorised Signatory (Authorization Dated 2.8.2025) Mohan Kumar P. S/o.Perumal, Having Office At No.13, Moores Road, Moores Garden, Thousand Lights Chennai-600 006

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

Vs

¶10

Secretary Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

¶11

Directorate Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Panagal Building, Chennai-600015

¶12

The Executive Officer Arani Town Panchayat, Arani, Tiruvallur-601 101

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.4.2025 and pay the sum of Rs.86,604/(Rupees Eighty six thousand six hundred and four only) within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶15

Page1 of 5

¶16

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

WP No. 33389 of 2025

For Petitioner:

Mr. C.Sai Krishnan

For Respondents: Mr. M. Sivavarthanan, Govt. Counsel

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 19.04.2025. By the said representation, the petitioner called upon the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.86,604/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

¶23

The petitioner states that it has been one of the Government of Tamil Nadu’s recognised empanelled advertising agencies since 1990. The petitioner further states that, pursuant to the instructions issued by the third respondent, it published the advertisements containing the contents specified by the respondents in the specified Tamil dailies on the respective dates. Thereafter, the petitioner raised invoices in accordance with the rates prescribed by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner is that, although the publication of the advertisements by the petitioner has not been disputed by the Department of Information and Public Relations, the third respondent has not taken any steps to disburse the amount due to the petitioner for the services rendered.

¶25

Page2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 33389 of 2025

¶28

Learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s representation dated 19.04.2025 would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed on merits within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Counsel, the third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 19.04.2025 on its own merits and in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30