Allowed¶30

Iyyappan Thanganadar v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Feb 2026WP(MD)/3322/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(MD).No.3322 of 2026; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; R.Vijayakumar J.; 16.02.2026; Article 226 Constitution of India; Writ of Mandamus; Iyyappan Thanganadar v. District Collector Nagercoil; Puthalam Second Grade Town Panchayat; Kanyakumari; contractor registration cancellation; Resolution No.621 dated 31.07.2025; stigmatic order; no notice or opportunity of hearing; resolution not communicated; participation in upcoming tender works; town panchayat tender; natural justice; administrative decision without due process; petition allowed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus granted: respondents directed to permit the petitioner to participate in all upcoming tender works notwithstanding Resolution No.621 dated 31.07.2025; no order as to costs. ¶30

Iyyappan Thanganadar Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ of Mandamus granted: respondents directed to permit the petitioner to participate in all upcoming tender works notwithstanding Resolution No.621 dated 31.07.2025; no order as to costs.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner may be barred from participating in the upcoming tender works notified by the respondents on the basis of Resolution No.621 dated 31.07.2025, which cancelled his contractor registration with the fourth respondent Town Panchayat without notice, hearing, or communication.

¶20

Court's answer

Resolution No.621 dated 31.07.2025 makes allegations against the petitioner and affects his registration; the order is stigmatic in nature, yet it was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity of hearing, and it was not communicated to him. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be prevented from participating in the upcoming tender works by placing reliance upon the said resolution.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to participate in all upcoming tender works.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), single judge (R. Vijayakumar J.), W.P.(MD).No.3322 of 2026, decided 16.02.2026: A registered contractor of Puthalam Second Grade Town Panchayat sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 to be permitted to participate in upcoming tender works despite Resolution No.621 dated 31.07.2025, by which the Town Panchayat (fourth respondent) cancelled his contractor registration on the ground that he neither received the work order nor commenced the work. Examining the resolution produced at its instance, the Court found it stigmatic in nature, passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity of hearing, and without communication of the resolution or any consequential order to him. Holding that the petitioner therefore cannot be prevented from participating in upcoming tender works by reliance on that resolution, the Court directed the respondents to permit his participation in all upcoming tender works and allowed the writ petition to that extent, with no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.3322 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.3322 of 2026

¶7

Iyyappan Thanganadar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Nagercoil – 629001.

¶10

2.The Additional Director (Town Panchayats), Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil – 629001.

¶11

3.The Executive Officer, Puthalam Second Grade Town Panchayat, Puthalam, Kanyakumari District – 629602.

¶12

4.The President, Puthalam Second Grade Town Panchayat, Puthalam, Kanyakumari District – 629602. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in all the upcoming tender works and by not following the Puthalam Second Grade Town Panchayat resolution no 621 dated 31 July 2025 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.3322 of 2026

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.Ananth For R1 & R2 : M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia, Special Government Pleader

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus

¶20

directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the upcoming tender works, without giving effect to Resolution No.621 dated 31.07.2025 passed by the fourth respondent Town Panchayat.

¶21

The petitioner is a registered contractor of the fourth respondent

¶22

Town Panchayat. According to the petitioner, he was declared as a successful tenderer and a work order was issued to him. However, it is the case of the fourth respondent that the petitioner neither received the work order nor commenced the work, and therefore, the fourth respondent passed Resolution No.621 dated 31.07.2025 cancelling the petitioner’s registration as a contractor. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that neither a copy of the resolution nor any consequential order was served upon him. Consequently, he is not being permitted to participate in any of the tender works notified by the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.3322 of 2026

¶26

This Court directed the respondents to produce a copy of Resolution No.621 dated 31.07.2025. A perusal of the said resolution reveals that certain allegations have been made against the writ petitioner and an order affecting his registration has been passed. The order is stigmatic in nature. However, the resolution has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner or without affording him an opportunity of hearing. Further, the same has not been communicated to him. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be prevented from participating in the upcoming tender works by placing reliance upon the said resolution.

¶27