Dismissed¶59

G.Jeeva Raj, v. The District Collector

Madras HC14 Jul 2026WP(MD)/18446/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of civil works contract for delay; writ petition dismissed; no automatic extension of time; Clause 16.2 progress notice absent but no right to extension; contractor failed to adhere to contractual schedule; no arbitrariness or mala fides established; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; National Health Mission 2025-2026; 15th Central Finance Commission Grant; Primary Health Centre Mangadu, Munchirai Panchayat Union; Health Sub-Centre Mathur; Thiruvattar Panchayat Union; Kanyakumari; District Rural Development Agency; G.Jeevaraj v. District Collector, Nagercoil; M.Dhandapani J.; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; 14.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

It is not in dispute that the petitioner failed to complete the works within the period stipulated under the respective agreements. ¶54

G.Jeeva Raj, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned cancellation orders dated 10.06.2026 (ROC.No.A2/1986/2025) and 29.05.2026 (Na.Ka.No.A2/357/2026) passed by the second respondent are illegal and liable to be quashed, with directions to grant the petitioner reasonable time to complete the balance work. +2 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

It is not in dispute that the petitioner failed to complete the works within the period stipulated under the respective agreements.

¶54

Key takeaways

The mere absence of a notice under Clause 16.2 does not, by itself, confer a right on the petitioner to seek extension of time or to compel the respondents to continue the contract, particularly when the petitioner admittedly failed to adhere to the contractual schedule.ratio¶58
The petitioner has not established any arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of any statutory provision warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (M.Dhandapani J., 14.07.2026) dismissing W.P(MD)Nos.18446 and 18496 of 2026 filed by G.Jeevaraj under Article 226 seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash cancellation orders dated 10.06.2026 (ROC.No.A2/1986/2025) and 29.05.2026 (Na.Ka.No.A2/357/2026) passed by the Block Development Officer, Thiruvattar Panchayat Union, cancelling his contracts for construction of a Primary Health Centre at Mangadu (bid Rs.46,29,449/- against estimate Rs.50,00,000/-) and a Health Sub-Centre at Mathur under the National Health Mission 2025-2026 (bid Rs.39,35,005/- against estimate Rs.45,00,000/-), both cancelled for delay in execution. The petitioner argued that no Clause 16.2 progress-notice was issued and undertook to complete the nearly 40%-completed balance work within three months. Held: failure to complete within the stipulated periods being undisputed, the mere absence of a Clause 16.2 notice does not by itself confer a right to extension of time or compel continuance of the contract, and no arbitrariness, mala fides or statutory violation was established warranting writ interference. Writ petitions dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)Nos.18446 and 18496 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.07.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.18446 and 18496 of 2026 and WMP (MD) Nos.13656, 13658, 13677, 13679 & 13682 of 2026

¶7

W.P(MD)No.18446 of 2026

¶8

G.Jeevaraj ... Petitioner(s)

¶9

vs.

¶10

The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari – 629 009.

¶11

The Block Development Officer, Thiruvattar Panchayat Union, Kanyakumari – 629 177.

¶12

The Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Collectorate Complex, Chithambaranathan Street, Simon Nagar, Nagercoil – 629 001.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

1/9

¶15

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

¶16

PRAYER :

¶17

W.P(MD)Nos.18446 and 18496 of 2026

¶18

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned cancellation order dated 10.06.2026 in ROC.No.A2/1986/2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to grant reasonable time to the petitioner to complete the balance work relating to the construction of Primary Health Centre under National Health Mission 2025-2026.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Puhazhgandhi For R1 & R3 : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, Counsel for State For R2 : Ms.K.R.Shivashankari, Counsel for State

¶20

W.P(MD)No.18496 of 2026

G.Jeevaraj

... Petitioner(s)

vs.

The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari – 629 009.

¶25

The Block Development Officer, Thiruvattar Panchayat Union, Kanyakumari – 629 177.

¶26

The Project Director, District Rural Development Agency,

¶27

2/9

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)Nos.18446 and 18496 of 2026

¶30

Collectorate Complex, Chithambaranathan Street, Simon Nagar, Nagercoil – 629 001.

¶31

... Respondent(s)

¶32

PRAYER : Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned Cancellation order dated 29.05.2026 in Na.Ka.No. A2/357/2026 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent fixed for fresh tender dated 02.07.2026 and to grant reasonable time to the petitioner to complete the balance work relating to the Construction of Health Sub Centre at Mathur under National Health Mission 2025-2026.

¶33

For Petitioner : Mr.Puhazhgandhi For R1 & R3 : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, Counsel for State For R2 : Ms.K.R.Shivashankari, Counsel for State

¶34

COMMON ORDER

¶35

Challenging the impugned cancellation orders dated 10.06.2026 and 29.05.2026 passed by the second respondent, these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner.

¶36

3/9

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)Nos.18446 and 18496 of 2026

¶39

2. The case of the petitioner is that t he respondent invited tenders for the construction of a Primary Health Centre building at Mangadu, Arudesam Area, under Munchirai Panchayat Union. The estimated contract value was Rs.50,00,000/-. The petitioner emerged as the successful bidder by quoting Rs.46,29,449/-, which was 5.40% below the estimated value and consequently the work was awarded to him. The petitioner was also awarded another contract for the construction of a Health Sub-Centre at Mathur under the National Health Mission, 2025-2026, funded under the 15th Central Finance Commission Grant, pursuant to proceedings dated 16.07.2025. The estimated value of the said work was Rs.45,00,000/-. The petitioner was the successful bidder by quoting Rs.39,35,005/-, which was 11% below the estimated cost. However, on the ground of delay in the execution of the work, the respondents issued the impugned cancellation orders. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions before this Court.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, under the first contract, the period stipulated for completion of the work was 12 months, commencing on 18.07.2025 and ending on 17.07.2026. Under the second

¶41

4/9

¶42

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

¶43

W.P(MD)Nos.18446 and 18496 of 2026

¶44

contract, the work commenced on 02.12.2025 with a stipulated completion period of six months, i.e., on or before 01.06.2026.

¶45

The learned counsel further submitted that, under Clause 16 of the respective agreements, the respondents were required to monitor the progress of the work at every stage. Clause 16 prescribes stage-wise progress of the work, commencing from the preparatory stage and continuing through the subsequent stages. Clause 16.2 further provides that, if at any stage the progress of the work is found to be slow and is likely to affect its completion within the stipulated period, the Engineer shall notify the contractor in writing and call upon him to expedite the work. In the present case, no such notice, as contemplated under Clause 16.2, was issued by the respondents. It was further submitted that, owing to the petitioner's ill-health, he could not complete the works within the stipulated period. Nevertheless, the petitioner has completed nearly 40% of the work.

¶46

5.The learned counsel fairly submitted that if a further period of

¶47

three months is granted, the petitioner undertakes to complete the balance work within the said period and to that effect, he files an affidavit of undertaking before

¶48

5/9

¶49

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

¶50

W.P(MD)Nos.18446 and 18496 of 2026

¶51

this Court. It was, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to grant extension of time and permit the petitioner to complete the remaining work.

¶52

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the terms of the contract do not provide for an automatic extension of time. Unless the petitioner satisfies the contractual requirements for grant of extension, no such relief can be granted. It was further submitted that the petitioner failed to complete the work within the contractual period and that the impugned cancellation orders were issued strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶53

This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶54

It is not in dispute that the petitioner failed to complete the works within the period stipulated under the respective agreements. The principal contention of the petitioner is that no notice, as contemplated under Clause 16.2

¶55

6/9

¶56

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

¶57

W.P(MD)Nos.18446 and 18496 of 2026

¶58

of the agreements, was issued before the impugned cancellation orders came to be passed. However, the mere absence of such a notice, by itself, does not confer a right upon the petitioner to seek extension of time or to compel the respondents to continue the contract, particularly when the petitioner admittedly failed to adhere to the contractual schedule. The petitioner has not established any arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of any statutory provision warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

¶59

In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in these writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶60

14.07.2026

¶61

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PKN

¶62

7/9

¶63

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

¶64

W.P(MD)Nos.18446 and 18496 of 2026

¶65

¶66

The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari – 629 009.

¶67

The Block Development Officer, Thiruvattar Panchayat Union, Kanyakumari – 629 177.

¶68

The Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Collectorate Complex, Chithambaranathan Street, Simon Nagar, Nagercoil – 629 001.

¶69

8/9

¶70

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

¶71

W.P(MD)Nos.18446 and 18496 of 2026

¶72

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

¶73

PKN

¶74

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)Nos.18446 and 18496 of 2026

¶75

DATED : 14.07.2026

¶76

9/9

¶77

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Two cancellation orders passed by the second respondent (Block Development Officer, Thiruvattar Panchayat Union): order dated 10.06.2026 in ROC.No.A2/1986/2025 cancelling the Primary Health Centre contract, and order dated 29.05.2026 in Na.Ka.No.A2/357/2026 cancelling the Health Sub-Centre contract, both on the ground of delay in execution.¶35
Block Development Officer, Thiruvattar Panchayat Union (second respondent) · 10.06.2026 and 29.05.2026
Prior proceeding
Tenders invited for construction of a Primary Health Centre building at Mangadu, Arudesam Area, under Munchirai Panchayat Union; estimated contract value Rs.50,00,000/-; petitioner emerged as successful bidder quoting Rs.46,29,449/- (5.40% below estimate) and the work was awarded to him.¶39
Prior proceeding
Petitioner awarded another contract for construction of a Health Sub-Centre at Mathur under the National Health Mission 2025-2026, funded under the 15th Central Finance Commission Grant, pursuant to proceedings dated 16.07.2025.¶39
Prior proceeding
Estimated value of the Health Sub-Centre work was Rs.45,00,000/-; petitioner was the successful bidder quoting Rs.39,35,005/-, 11% below the estimated cost.¶39
Prior proceeding
On the ground of delay in execution of the works, the respondents issued the impugned cancellation orders.¶39
Prior proceeding
First contract (Primary Health Centre): stipulated completion period of 12 months, commencing 18.07.2025 and ending 17.07.2026.¶40
Prior proceeding
Second contract (Health Sub-Centre, Mathur): work commenced 02.12.2025 with a stipulated completion period of six months, i.e., on or before 01.06.2026.¶44
Prior proceeding
Clause 16 of the agreements prescribes stage-wise progress and Clause 16.2 required the Engineer to notify the contractor in writing to expedite slow progress; petitioner contends no such notice was issued before cancellation.¶45
Prior proceeding
Owing to the petitioner's ill-health he could not complete the works within the stipulated period; nevertheless he completed nearly 40% of the work.¶45
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if a further period of three months were granted, the petitioner undertook to complete the balance work and to file an affidavit of undertaking to that effect.¶47
Prior proceeding
Respondents' counsel submitted that the contract terms provide no automatic extension of time, that the petitioner failed to complete within the contractual period, and that the cancellation orders were issued strictly in accordance with the contract; writ petitions liable to be dismissed.¶52

G.Jeeva Raj, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Jeeva Raj, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premi Ninija Vs The District Revenue Officer

Sornam .K Vs The District Collector

Seetha R Vs The Executive Engineer

Senthil Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Labor

The Managing Director Vs Chandran G

M/S.Prakash Paper Mills Vs the Superintending Engineer