M/s.Orange Power Transmission and Distribution Vs Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (Tnpdcl)

REC Limited (formerly Rural Electrification Corporation Limited), a Government of India Enterprise, represented by its Managing Director, Plot No.I-4, Near IFFCO Chowk Metro Station Sector – 29, Gurugram – 122 001.

¶18

M/s. Universal Cables Limited, represented by its Director, Prince Towers, 5th Floor, Nos.25 & 26, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶19

... Respondent(s)

¶20

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 leading to the issuance of the Cancellation order bearing No.SE/KEDC/KRR/AEE/RAPDRP/AE/GIS/F.Uni/D.No.443/26 dated 05.03.2026 the consequential order bearing Lr.No.SE/KEDC/KRR/AEE/RAPDRP/F.Uni/D.No.94/2026 dated 27.05.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 4th respondent to remove the name of the petitioner company from the list of Banned/Debarred Companies published under the Revamped Distribution Sector Scheme(RDSS) on the website of the fourth respondent.

¶21

2/9

¶22

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

¶23

W.P(MD)No.18593 of 2026

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.K.H.M. Mohamed Abdul Rasiq For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Dheenadhayalan, Standing Counsel

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the cancellation order 05.03.2026 and the consequential order dated 27.05.2026 directing the fourth respondent to remove the name of the petitioner company from the list of Banned/Debarred Companies published under the Revamped Distribution Sector Scheme(RDSS) on the website of the fourth respondent.

¶27

2. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Since no adverse order is going to be passed, notice to the respondents 4 and 5 is dispensed with.

¶28

3/9

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD)No.18593 of 2026

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials

¶32

available on record.

¶33

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) engaged in the manufacture of transmission and distribution equipment, including polymer composite insulators, which are supplied to various power distribution companies across India u nder the Revamped Distribution Sector Scheme (RDSS), the first respondent awarded a project to Universal Cables Limited (UCL) for execution of loss reduction works. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent approved the petitioner as a sub-vendor for the supply of 33 KV polymer composite pin insulators by proceedings dated 06.08.2024, after due factory inspection. Accordingly, the petitioner supplied 1,783 numbers of 33 KV polymer composite pin insulators to Krishnagiri and 1360 numbers to Ranipet through UCL. Prior to dispatch, the petitioner’s factory was inspected and found satisfactory. Thereafter, the Quality Monitoring Agency, namely the National Power Training Institute, appointed by the fourth respondent, conducted field material quality testing. Samples were sent to an NABLaccredited laboratory. Though the laboratory report indicated failure in one

¶34

4/9

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No.18593 of 2026

¶37

mechanical test parameter, all other parameters were found satisfactory. Consequently, the fourth respondent issued a Material Rejection Certificate dated 18.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner and UCL replaced the rejected lot and fresh inspection calls were raised. The fourth respondent conducted factory inspection and testing of the replacement lot from 11.07.2025 to 27.07.2025. After successful testing, the petitioner supplied the replacement quantity of 1,783 numbers of 33 KV polymer composite pin insulators. The replacement lot was again subjected to laboratory testing, and all the parameters were found to be in conformity with the prescribed standards. Accordingly, the fourth respondent issued a Material Clearance Certificate dated 29.09.2025. Despite the petitioner having replaced the rejected materials and obtained the Material Clearance Certificate, the second respondent cancelled the petitioner’s sub-vendor approval by proceedings dated 05.03.2026, solely on the ground that the original lot had earlier been rejected. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the second respondent passed the impugned cancellation order dated 05.03.2026, the

¶39

5/9

¶40

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

¶41

W.P(MD)No.18593 of 2026

¶42

said order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Had an opportunity been given, the petitioner would have satisfactorily explained the subsequent replacement of the materials and the issuance of the Material Clearance Certificate. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as being violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶43

Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that, if the impugned order is set aside, the respondents have no objection to reconsidering the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶44

In view of the above and also taking note of the fair submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent shall pass appropriate orders, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, on merits and in accordance

¶45

6/9

¶46

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

¶47

W.P(MD)No.18593 of 2026

¶48

with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶49

This writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No

¶50

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶51

03.07.2026

¶52

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

¶53

7/9

¶54

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

¶55

W.P(MD)No.18593 of 2026

¶56

To

¶57

Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL), represented by its Chairman, NPKRR Maaligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶58

The Superintending Engineer, Karur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL), Karur.

¶59

The Chief Engineer (Distribution), Gandhi Nagar, Vellore Region, Vellore.

¶60

REC Limited (formerly Rural Electrification Corporation Limited), a Government of India Enterprise, represented by its Managing Director, Plot No.I-4, Near IFFCO Chowk Metro Station Sector – 29, Gurugram – 122 001.

¶61

8/9

¶62

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

¶63

W.P(MD)No.18593 of 2026

¶64

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

¶65

PKN

¶66

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.18593 of 2026