A.v.Rev Traders Vs The Managing Director

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned blacklisting proceedings No. MDU/DIS. 2228/P dated 20.05.2026 issued by the respondents, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner firm to participate in future tenders, auctions and disposal proceedings without any restriction or blacklisting.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.15205 of 2026

¶16

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Sivaprakash For Respondents :Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro *****

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the proceedings dated 20.05.2026 issued by the second respondent.

¶19

2.By the impugned proceedings, the work order issued in favour of the petitioner for taking delivery of bus body shells was cancelled. Consequentially, the amount deposited by the petitioner was forfeited and the petitioner was also blacklisted from participating in future tender processes conducted by the respondent Corporation.

¶20

3.The case of the petitioner is that he was declared the successful bidder in the e-auction conducted by the respondent Corporation. As per the terms of the auction, the petitioner was required to take delivery of 29 bus body shells within a period of fourteen days. According to the respondent Corporation, the petitioner failed to take delivery of the bus body shells within the stipulated period and repeatedly sought extension

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.15205 of 2026

¶24

of time citing various reasons. It is further stated that, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in an earlier round of litigation, additional time was granted to the petitioner. However, despite the extensions granted from time to time, the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the auction. Consequently, the respondent Corporation cancelled the contract, forfeited the amount deposited by the petitioner and blacklisted him from participating in future tenders.

¶25

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

5.The cancellation of the contract, forfeiture of the amount deposited by the petitioner and blacklisting of the petitioner from participating in future tenders undoubtedly entail serious civil consequences. It is well settled that any action resulting in adverse civil consequences must be preceded by compliance with the principles of natural justice.

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.15205 of 2026

¶30

6.In the present case, before passing the impugned order, the

¶31

respondent Corporation ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner and afforded him an opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, no such opportunity was provided before the impugned proceedings came to be issued.

¶32

7.Therefore, the impugned proceedings suffer from violation of the

¶33

principles of natural justice and are liable to be set aside on that ground alone, without this Court expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations made against the petitioner.

¶34

8.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings

¶35

dated 20.05.2026 issued by the second respondent are hereby quashed.

¶36

9.Liberty is reserved to the second respondent to initiate fresh proceedings and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner and affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.15205 of 2026

¶40

10.There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected

¶41

miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

Index :Yes / No 09.06.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr