Madras High Court
A.Muthiruvakkal vs The Project Director on 1 June, 2023
WP(MD)Nos.21245 and 21260 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 01.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)Nos.21245 and 21260 of 2014
and
WMP(MD)No.11982 of 2022
A.Muthiruvakkal ... Petitioner
in WP(MD)No.21245 of 2014
K.Bharathi ... Petitioner
in WP(MD)No.21260 of 2014
Vs
1.The Project Director,
Tunami Project Implementation Unit,
100, Anna Salai,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
2.The District Collector /
Chairman,
Tsunami District Implementation Unit,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
3.The Project Co-Ordinator,
Tsunami District Implementation Unit,
9, Popular Building,
Nagercoil.
... Respondents in both WPs
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)Nos.21245 and 21260 of 2014
directing the 1st respondent to settle the dues payable to
the petitioner for the works carried out in respect of the
packages VII, IX, XI and XII under Rajiv Gandhi
Rehabilitation Package Housing Works and refund of Earnest
Money Deposit [EMD] and Security Deposit, based on the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent in DIU-02/683-1/2008 dated
17.12.2012 and the subsequent proceedings in No.B1/683/2008
dated 25.11.2014 in the light of the orders passed in
WA(MD)No.316 to 321 of 2010 dated 21.09.2010 along with
interest, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Deepak
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan.
Additional Advocate General
assisted by S.Shaji Bino,
Special Government Pleader
in both WPs
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners are the contractors, who were engaged
for construction of houses under Rajiv Gandhi
Rehabilitation package for Tsunami affected areas in
Kanyakumari District in the year 2008 and they have
approached this Court that their dues were not settled to
them.
2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)Nos.21245 and 21260 of 2014
2.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the respondents, by referring the judgment passed in
WA(MD)Nos.316 to 321 of 2010, dated 21.09.2010 submits that
the very same petitioners have already approached this
Court for the very same relief and this Court considering
the arbitration clause has rejected the writ petition and
also directed them to work out the remedy under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
3.The learned Additional Advocate General by referring
the Arbitration clause submits that the arbitration can be
entertained only if the disputed amount is upto Rs.50,000/-
and even if the claim is more than Rs.50,000/- they have to
work out their remedy before the competent civil court.
4.In view of the terms of the contract agreement these
writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the
petitioners either to work out their remedy before the
competent civil court or under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act as directed by this Court in WA(MD)Nos.316
to 321 of 2010, dated 21.09.2010. No costs. Consequently
3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)Nos.21245 and 21260 of 2014
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.06.2023
Internet : Yes / No
dsk
To
1.The Project Director,
Tunami Project Implementation Unit,
100, Anna Salai,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
2.The District Collector /
Chairman,
Tsunami District Implementation Unit,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
3.The Project Co-Ordinator,
Tsunami District Implementation Unit,
9, Popular Building,
Nagercoil.
4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)Nos.21245 and 21260 of 2014
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
WP(MD)Nos.21245 and
21260 of 2014
01.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
