Dismissed¶20

K.Manikandan v. The Superintending Engineer (Highways)

Madras HC23 Jan 2026WP(MD)/29835/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; W.P.(MD)No.29835 of 2025; K.Manikandan v. Superintending Engineer (Highways), Tirunelveli Circle, Divisional Engineer (Highways), Nagercoil and SAS Builders; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus against highways tender summary report dated 23.10.2025 under Tender Notification No. 26/2025-2026/HDO dated 26.08.2025; dismissed as withdrawn on counsel's request and endorsement; no costs; connected W.M.P(MD)Nos.23077 & 23078 of 2025 closed; decision date 23.01.2026; judge R.Vijayakumar; cite only if the fact of withdrawal (no merits adjudicated) is relevant.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with no costs and connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no substantive ruling on the tender challenge. ¶20

K.Manikandan Vs The Superintending Engineer (Highways) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 23.01.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.29835 of 2025

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)Nos.23077 & 23078 of 2025

¶8

K.Manikandan

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

The Superintending Engineer (Highways), Government of Tamil Nadu, Construction and Maintenance, Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli.

¶11

The Divisional Engineer (Highways), Government of Tamil Nadu, Construction and Maintenance, Nagercoil.

¶12

SAS Builders, Registered Highways and PWD I Class Contract, Opp. Periyanagi Annai Church, 23/241 B1, Kattuthara, Thiruvithancode(Po), Kanyakumari District.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned tender summary report of the 1^st respondent dated 23.10.2025 in his Tender Notification No. 26/2025-2026/HDO, dated 26.08.2025 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to call for the tender afresh.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : M/s.C.Bharathi For Respondents : M/s.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate for R1 and R2 Mr.P.Puhazh Gandhi for R3

¶18

ORDER

¶19

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition. The Counsel has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶20

Recording the said submission and endorsement, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶21

23.01.2026 2/7

¶22

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

¶26