Disposed¶33

M/S.C.R.and Co., v. the Director

Madras HC6 Mar 2026WP/8914/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P.No.8914 of 2026; decided 06.03.2026; Abdul Quddhose, J.; Article 226 mandamus; petitioner M/s.C.R. & Co.; respondents: Director/Directorate of Town Panchayats, District Collector and Assistant Director (Nilgiris), Executive Officer Helical Town Panchayat; subject tender already allotted to third party — mandamus to consider representation dated 07.02.2026 for recall of allotment refused ('does not arise'); only remedy against illegal allotment is to challenge it; petition withdrawn by endorsement, disposed with liberty to challenge the Works contract issued to third party; no costs; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of upon endorsed withdrawal, granting the petitioner liberty to file appropriate legal proceedings challenging the Works contract issued to the third party; no order as to costs.

M/S.C.R.and Co., Vs the Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 should issue directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2026 (requesting recall of the tender/Works contract allotted to a third party) and pass orders within a time limit fixed by the Court.

¶16

Court's answer

Because the subject tender has already been allotted to a third party, the question of considering the petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2026 for re-calling the earlier allotment does not arise.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

If any illegality was committed in the allotment of the tender to the third party, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the allotment itself.

¶27

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the writ of mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2026 does not arise.ratio¶27
The writ petition, whose withdrawal was endorsed by counsel, is disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to file appropriate legal proceedings challenging the Works contract issued to the third party, with no order as to costs.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Abdul Quddhose, J.), W.P.No.8914 of 2026, decided 06.03.2026 — Writ petition (mandamus under Article 226, Constitution of India) by M/s.C.R. & Co. seeking a direction to the Town Panchayat authorities (Nilgiris) to 'consider' its representation dated 07.02.2026 for re-calling a tender already allotted to a third party: the Court held that since the subject tender has already been allotted to a third party, the question of considering the representation for re-calling the allotment does not arise, and the writ of mandamus sought therefore does not arise; if any illegality was committed in the allotment, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the allotment itself. Following an endorsement by counsel seeking withdrawal, the Court disposed of the petition by granting liberty to file appropriate legal proceedings challenging the Works contract issued to the third party, with no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.8914 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.03.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.No.8914 of 2026

¶7

M/s.C.R. & Co., Rep. by its Managing Partner, C.Rajan, No.18G 3/4, Woodcote, Coonoor, The Nilgiris – 643 102.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Director,

¶11

Directorate of Town Panchayat, Chennai – 600 028.

¶12

2.The District Collector The Nilgiris.

¶13

3.The Assistant Director/Regional Director, Town Panchayats, The Nilgiris District.

¶14

4.The Executive Officer, Helical Town Panchayat, The Nilgiris.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 07.02.2026 and pass orders as per the prevailing laws within time limit fixed by this Court.

¶17

Page No.1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.8914 of 2026

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumarasamy

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.K.Surendran

¶22

Additional Government Pleader [R1 to R3] Mr.T.Chezhian Additional Government Pleader [R4]

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Mr.K.Surendran, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts

¶26

notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.T.Chezhian, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the 4 th respondent.

¶27

2. Since the subject tender has already been allotted to a third party, the question of considering the petitioner’s representation dated 07.02.2026 for re-calling the earlier allotment granted to a third party does not arise. If there was any illegality committed in the said allotment to a third party, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the allotment. Therefore, the writ of mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 07.02.2026 does not arise.

¶28

Page No.2 of 4

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.8914 of 2026

¶31

3. This Court had expressed the view to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has made an endorsement seeking withdrawal of this writ petition, however he seeks liberty for the petitioner to file appropriate legal proceedings challenging the Works contract issued to the third party, which is the subject matter of this writ petition.

¶32

4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by granting

¶33

liberty to the petitioner as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

06.03.2026

¶35

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No sp

¶36

¶37