Madras High Court
K.S.Mani Electricals vs The Union Of India on 1 April, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
K.S.Mani Electricals
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr.K.Subramanian
Having Business at No.50, III Cross
Velmurugan Nagar
Kuyavarpalayam, Puducherry 13. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.24664/2023
G.Kuppusamy & Co,
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr.J.Vinyagamurthy
Having Business at No.50, III Cross
Velmurugan Nagar
Kuyavarpalayam, Puducherry 13. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.24666/2023
Vs.
1.The Union of India
Rep.by the Chief Secretary
Government of Pondicherry
Pondicherry.
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
2.The Secretary
Department of Finance
Government of Pondicherry
Public Works Department
Puducherry 605 005.
3.The Secretary
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department
Government of Pondicherry
Pondicherry.
4.The Director
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department
Government of Pondicherry
Pondicherry.
5.The Managing Director
Pondicherry Adi Dravidar Development
Corporation (PADCO), No.30, II Cross
Pon Nagar, Rediyarpalayam, Pondicherry.
6.D.Ragunathan
Officer on Special Duty
Police Department (Retired)
No.9, Sai Street, 9th Cross, Krishna
Nagar, Puducherry.8 ...Respondents in both W.P.Nos.
(R6-impleaded as per order dated 01.04.2025
in WMP.Nos.7614 & 7630/2024 in
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666/2023)
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
Common Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the order passed in No.1215/PADSTDC/EW/2023-24 dated
10.07.2023 by the fifth respondent and to quash the same and consequently
direct the respondents herein to release the funds to the petitioner based on
the reports submitted by the Advocate Commissioners under the Civic and
Basic Amenities Funds towards the installation of High Mast Lightening
System and availing External Service Connection at various places in
Pondicherry and Karaikal Region and further in changing of the 400W High
Mast Light into LED light fittings at various places in Pondicherry and
Karaikal Region.
For Petitioners in
both W.P.Nos. : Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian
Senior Counsel
Assisted by
Mr.M.Nandhakumar
For Respondents
in both W.P.Nos. : Mr.R.Sreedhar for R1 to R5
Additional Government Pleader
(Pondicherry)
No appearance for R6
3/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions are identical and pertain to similar causes of
action; therefore, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common
order.
2. The prayer in the Writ Petitions challenges the impugned
orders issued to each of the petitioners on 10.07.2023. By this order, the
petitioners' representation for payment of amounts due to them for the
installation of High Mast Lights/Mini Mast Lights, including the foundations
for the light towers and the associated foundation work, was denied.
3. The brief factual matrix in which these writ petitions arise is
that the petitioners are firms engaged in electrical contracting and related
works. They are also registered Class-I contractors with the Public Works
Department of the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry. The
petitioners assert that the fifth respondent corporation has been undertaking
the installation of High Mast Lights/Mini Mast Lights in areas where people
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
from the Scheduled Caste community reside, aiming to enhance their safety
and security.
4. The projects have been organised constituency-wise.
Whenever the fifth respondent corporation identifies a project, they will
immediately issue a proceeding outlining the name of the work and the
approximate amount involved. Thereafter, the Assistant Engineer of the fifth
respondent corporation will identify the locations where the High Mast
Lights or Mini Mast Lights need to be erected. The works were carried out by
the petitioners according to the provided directions and specifications.
Earlier, several amounts were also disbursed for the same works. However,
when the petitioners completed the works in the year 2017-18, none of the
payments were released. In fact, since not even a part of the amount was
released, the petitioners could not manage to complete all the works; some of
the High Mast and Mini Mast installations remain incomplete, few are in the
foundation stage, and some were not undertaken at all. Nonetheless, they
have performed the major portion of the work. In total, the petitioner in
W.P.No.24664 of 2023, namely M/s.K.S.Mani Electricals, claims an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
outstanding balance of Rs.7,43,87,000/-. As for the petitioner in
WP.No.24666 of 2023, namely M/s.Kuppusamy and Co, they have completed
works amounting to Rs.9,70,49,000/- for the Pondicherry Region and
Rs.5,76,80,000/-for the Karaikal Region. Not a single rupee has been paid.
Consequently, the petitioners previously approached this Court through
W.P.Nos.32054 of 2019, etc.
5. In the aforementioned writ petitions, orders were issued
appointing Advocate Commissioners on 29.06.2022 to conduct a detailed
inspection and to file reports accordingly. Two Advocate Commissioners
were appointed, one for the Puducherry Region and another for the Karaikal
Region. The relevant order is extracted below for convenient reference;
“There is a serious dispute regarding the quantum
of work completed and value thereof. While the report filed
by the Engineers of the Pondicherry Electricity Department
discloses that most of the high raise masts have not been
completed, the petitioner has filed an independent report
which discloses that majority of work has been completed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
2. In order resolve the dispute, with the consent of
the learned counsel on either side, Mr.D.Sowndararajan,
Advocate, Pondicherry and Mr.Senthil Ragavan, Advocate,
Karaikal are appointed as Commissioners to inspect the
masts in Pondicherry region and Karaikal region and file a
report. The Advocate Commissioners are required to take
the assistance of an expert preferably a person who had
held a senior position in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
or its successor corporation. The Commissioners are
required to file a report indicating the extent of the work
completed and the estimated value thereof. The inputs of
the expert may also be incorporated in the report of the
Commissioners.
3. The Registry is required to handover the
Warrants of Commission to Mr.V.Balamurugan,
Government Pleader, Pondicherry, who shall forward it to
the Commissioners. The Warrants shall be issued by
06.07.2022. The Commissioners are requested to file their
reports preferably by 8th August 2022. The initial
remuneration to the Commissioners is fixed at Rs.50,000/-
each and the same shall be shared equally by the petitioners
and the Government of Pondicherry.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
6. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioners inspected all the
locations and provided detailed reports by the constituency. The learned
Commissioner, Mr.D.Soundararajan, has submitted a comprehensive report
consisting of parts A to G, spanning 47 pages. The Commissioner undertook
the task of inspecting each High Mast Light and Mini Mast Light in the
presence of the representatives of the petitioners, experts for valuation, and
officials of the respondents. Accordingly, constituency-wise details are
included in the Commissioner's report, detailing how many locations were
identified, out of which in how many locations the erection is complete and
the unit is working, how many remained incomplete, and in which locations
the work had not started at all etc. Thereafter, concerning both the completed
and incomplete locations, as per the prevailing schedule rates, the
Commissioner, with the assistance of the expert, also assessed the work
undertaken by the petitioners. The final estimated value and work status are
presented in a tabular format regarding M/s. G. Kuppusamy and Co. in Part E,
and M/s. K. S. Mani Electricals in Part F, which are provided below for
reference:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
Part -E
The Works Status and my estimated value for the
works done by the Writ Petitioner (S.Kuppusamy & Co,
Rep.by its Proprietor: J.Vinayagamurthy) in W.P.No.32056
of 2019 for the following constituencies [as per Part-B] are
as follows:
Sl.No. Constituency Estimated Value Work Status
Major works
1 Lawspet Rs.1,65,07,883/-
completed
Totally
2 Muthialpet Rs.13,54,649/-
Incomplete
Totally
3 Nellithope Rs.50,37,070/-
Incomplete
Mostly
4 Ariyankuppam Rs.12,37,643/-
Incomplete
Not fully
5 Manaveli Rs.1,61,16,669/-
completed
6 Abishekapakkam Rs.16,16,140/- Fully completed
Totally
7 Villianur Rs.77,11,024/-
incomplete
8 Embalam Rs.26,87,200/- Fully completed
Totally
9 Raj Bahavan Rs.1,82,735/-
incomplete
(Rupees Five
Crores Twenty
Four Lakhs Fifty
Total Estimation Rs.5,24,51,013/-
One Thousand
and Thirteen
Only)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
Part -F
The Works Status and my estimated value for
the works done by the Writ Petitioner [K.S.Mani Electrical,
Rep by its Proprietor: K.Subramanian] in W.P.No.32054 of
2019 for the following constituencies [as per Part-C] are as
follows:
Sl.No. Constituency Estimated Value Work Status
Bahour High Not fully
1 Rs.1,42,00,593/-
Mast completed
Bahour Mini Not fully
2 Rs.63,11,540/-
Mast completed
3 Ossudu Rs.48,52,043/- Incomplete
4 Embalam Rs.17,68,310/- Fully Completed
Not fully
5 Kamaraj Nagar Rs.1,02,93,471/--
completed
6 Raj Bhavan Rs.70,33,424/- Fully completed
(Rupees Four
Crores Forty Four
Lakhs Fifty Nine
Total Estimation Rs.4,44,59,381/-
Three Hundred
and Eighty One
Only)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
7. Similarly, regarding the Karaikal Region, the learned
Commissioner Mr.J.Senthil Raghavan conducted a comparable exercise by
constituency, where various locations were inspected. Finally, the work status
performed by K.S.Mani Electricals and its valuation are detailed in Part-E,
while information regarding G.Kuuppusamy and Co., is provided in Part-F,
which is extracted below for easy reference;
Part -E
The Works Status and my estimated value for the
works done by the Writ Petitioner [K.S.Mani Electrical, Rep
by its Proprietor: K.Subramanian] in W.P.No.32054 of 2019
for the following constituencies [as per Part-B] are as
follows:
Sl.No. Constituency Estimated Value Work Status
Rs.70,18,114/-
Thirunallar High [Rupees Seventy
Mast & T.R. Lakhs Eighteen Not fully
Pattinam Mini Thousand One completed
Mast. Hundred and
Fourteen Only]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
Part -F
The Works Status and my estimated value for the
works done by the Writ Petitioner [S.Kuppusamy & Co,
Rep by its Proprietor: J.Vinayagamurthy] in W.P.No.32056
of 2019 for the following constituencies [as per Part-C] are
as follows:
Sl.No. Constituency Estimated Value Work Status
Thirunallar High Not fully
1 Rs.1,35,07,993/-
Mast completed
TR Pattinam Totally
2 Rs.4,17,680/-
High Mast incomplete
Totally
3 Karaikal South Rs.7,53,234/-
incomplete
[Rupees One
Crore Forty Six
Lakhs Seventy
Total Estimation Rs.1,46,78,907/- Eight Thousand
Nine Hundred
and Seven One
only]
8. Subsequently, the Court heard the matters and issued the
following order, which is extracted below:
“ 8. It is seen from the earlier proceedings of this
Court that Advocate Commissioners have been appointed to
inspect the masts in Pondicherry Region and Karaikal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
Region and they have been directed to file a report. Further,
on a bare perusal of records, it reveals, while seeking for
payments for the said erection, the petitioners have not
enclosed the work orders issued in their favour. It is true
that an expenditure/payments can be done from the ex-
chequer only based on proper approval. That being the
position, only after proper enquiry, the issue can be
resolved. Further, petitioners have to submit proper records
before the respondents for getting their payments and if
they are entitled, the respondents shall act further for
processing their payments.
9. However, considering the limited request made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into
the merits of the matter, this Court directs the petitioners
herein to submit fresh representation in the above regard
along with necessary enclosures to the fifth respondent,
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. On receipt of such representations, the
5th respondent shall conduct an enquiry with regard to
installation of High Mast Lights in Pondicherrty region and
Karaikal Region, claimed to have been erected by the
petitioners herein and pass appropriate orders on merits and
in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners or any other interested parties,
within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
9. According to the aforementioned order, the respondents
examined the issue and determined that there was not even a tender, no work
order existed, and there was absolutely no sanctioned expenditure from the
Government. Therefore, they rejected the entire claim made by the
petitioners, leading to the issuance of the impugned orders, which prompted
the filing of the present Writ Petitions.
10. Heard Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.R.Sreedhar, the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents
1 to 5.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners taking this
Court through the initial order dated 05.09.2017, submitted that the
petitioners are not privy to the intra-office and inter-departmental
communications. Whether the Managing Director of PADCO received
expenditure authorisation from the Government and whether there was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
budgetary sanction for the same cannot be considerations for the petitioners.
They were the approved contractors and were periodically directed to install
the High Mast Lights/Mini Mast Lights at various locations identified by the
officials of the fifth respondent; accordingly, they have completed the work
and the lights are functioning. Earlier, when the carried out the works
payments were released but for the current transactions, the payments were
not made, resulting in these Writ Petitions.
12. The learned counsel submits that, regarding the matter, the
concerned Managing Director has received a charge memorandum based on
allegations that he awarded the contract without proper expenditure, thus
causing a loss to the Government. Therefore, the Government can only claim
this loss from him. To date, the Government has not paid a single rupee. The
learned senior counsel further submits that, although the petitioners have
claimed the amount per the original work order and estimate, the Advocate
Commissioners have inspected and assessed the amount based on the
scheduled rates in the presence of a retired Engineer from the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board who served as an expert. Given that the value has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
established, the petitioners should at least be awarded the amount determined
by the Advocate Commissioner.
13. The learned senior counsel submits that the lights have been
installed and are functioning in many locations. Additionally, the electricity
connections have been provided, and the commissioners have found that the
lights are operational in the majority of these locations. In the remaining
locations, work could not be fully completed because no funds were released,
and beyond a certain point, the petitioners could not invest their own money
to finish the project. Even without authorization of expenditure , the
respondents having received the benefits according to the principles of
quantum meruit and under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, the
respondents are obligated to release the payment.
14. The learned counsel would rely on the judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court of India in Food Corporation of India and
others Vs. Vikas Majdoor Kamdar Sahkari Mandli Limited1, specifically
1(2007) 13 SCC 544
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
referencing paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said judgment, which read as
follows:
“19. The principle of quantum meruit is often
applied where for some technical reason a contract is held
to be invalid. Under such circumstances an implied contract
is assumed, by which the person for whom the work is to be
done contracts to pay reasonable for the work done, to the
person who does the work. The provisions of this section
are based on the doctrine of quantum meruit, but the
provisions of the Contract Act admit of a more liberal
interpretation; the principle of the section being wider than
the principle of quantum meruit. The principle has no
application where there is a specific agreement in
operation. A person who does work or who supplies goods
under a contract, if no price is fixed, is entitled to be paid a
reasonable sum for his labour and the goods supplied. If the
work is outside the contract, the terms of the contract can
have not application; and the contractor is entitled to be
paid a reasonable price for such work as was done by him.
20. If a party to a contract has done additional
construction for another not intending to do it gratuitously
and such other has obtained benefit, the former is entitled
to compensation for the additional work not covered by the
contract. If an oral agreement is pleaded, which is not
proved, he will be entitled to compensation under Section
70. Payment under this Section can also be claimed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
work done beyond the terms of the contract when the
benefit of the work has been availed of by the defendant.”
Therefore, he would pray that the Writ Petitions be allowed and that the
respondents be directed to make payments within the time fixed by this
Court.
15. Per contra, Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned Additional Government
Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5, places reliance on the
counter-affidavits and certain additional documents filed by the respondents.
He would submit that the fifth respondent, namely Pondicherry Adi Dravidar
Development Corporation Limited, ought not to have indulged in the said
exercise. The then Managing Director, without any expenditure sanction or
permission from the Government, engaged in installing High Mast
Lights/Mini Mast lights. Previously, this exercise was carried out, and
inspections were made regarding the said sites. Proceedings were passed as
far back as the year 2016-17, during which the already installed lights were
inspected, and payments were released. It was ordered that no fresh work
should be undertaken by PADCO without a detailed estimate. The learned
counsel submits that in the earlier works, the total amount involved was also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
less than Rs. 5,00,000/-, and therefore, without any expenditure sanction and
detailed estimate, work orders were granted, which is not the case in the
present instance. The earlier amounts were lower, and although financial
sanction was obtained, only tender was not floated. In the current cases, this
is not so. It has been observed that in many places, the installation was either
incomplete or not functioning. Therefore, it was explicitly ordered that the
works should not be pursued further. The Lieutenant Governor, on
25.09.2017, also directed the authorities to discuss the matter forthwith.
Given the serious allegations made, an order was also issued on 26.09.2017
stating that no proper ground assessment or study for the location of these
lights had been conducted. In certain areas, the street lights themselves are
sufficient, and installing High Mast Lights/Mini Mast lights would only be a
waste of energy. It was further directed that no further erection of High
Masts/Mini Mast lamps should be undertaken without a proper study or
report. Additionally, it was ordered that there shall be no processing of fresh
proposals for the installation of High Mast Lights/Mini Mast Lights without
the prior concurrence of the Secretary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
16. The learned Additional Government Pleader asserts that,
even after this, the petitioners proceeded with the installation. They are all
Class-I contractors with the PWD Department and are familiar with every
procedure required before undertaking any work. They should not have
proceeded without a proper contract. There is not even a work allotment order
in this case. Therefore, in the absence of sanctioned expenditure for the work
and without a proper contract or tender, the amounts cannot be paid.
Accordingly, when this Court previously directed that the representations be
considered, this was done, and the decision has been rightly rejected; thus,
the petitioners are not entitled to any amounts. In any event, the petitioners
must approach the Civil Court, as the entire liability is disputed and cannot be
litigated before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. I have considered the rival submissions and reviewed the
material records of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
18. The first question to be decided is whether the petitioners
should be relegated to the Civil Court or if this Court can resolve the issue
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This case does not involve a
decision on liability due to any flaw or interpretation regarding the contract.
Additionally, this is not a matter relating to the determination of quantum, as
the respondents now seek to negate the entire claim. The rights and liabilities
of the parties in this case extend beyond the contractual realm and pertain to
issues of arbitrariness, propriety, and proportionality. Further, earlier the writ
petitions were entertained and Advocate Commissioners were appointed and
final orders were passed and this is a second round of litigation which was
already entertained on merits. Therefore, I hold that the petitioners need not
be relegated to the Civil Court, and this Court can entertain the issue under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
19. The next question is whether the petitioners are entitled to
payment. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government
pleader, all is not well with the petitioners. They are Class-I contractors
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
registered with the Public Works Department. When they are now claiming
for work done amounting to about Rs. 24 Crores in total, it is undertaken
without even a tender or a written work order. It cannot be said that the
petitioners are not concerned with the inter-office procedure. They cannot
plead complete ignorance of the procedure. Having said that, the actions of
the Government of Puducherry are even more startling. It is not in the regular
business of the fifth respondent, namely, the Puducherry Adi Dravidar
Development Corporation Limited, to provide lighting. Even the High Mast
lights should be provided in advantageous locations by the local bodies. In
the name of providing illumination to the Scheduled Caste resident colonies,
they have chosen all locations throughout various constituencies in the
Puducherry and Karaikal regions and taken up this responsibility to
themselves.
20. Firstly, this amounts to the siphoning of funds allocated to
the Corporation for the Welfare of the Scheduled Caste Community towards
general projects as except in a few locations where towers are situated for the
benefit of the Scheduled Caste people, not all towers are located solely in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
such areas. Further when no budgetary sanction has been obtained, and the
Government took serious objections despite the matter being flagged by the
Lieutenant Governor as early as 2017, the Government of Puducherry has not
moved an inch. If it is their case that even the petitioners colluded with the
Managing Director, a criminal complaint ought to have been lodged in this
regard. We are now in the year 2025, the proceedings started from 2017 to
2019 . It is submitted that vigilance inquiry is still pending for about 8 years.
That is unacceptable. To top it all, a charge memorandum has been issued to
the then Managing Director, who is now also impleaded as a party
respondent in the Writ Petitions. This memorandum contains one charge that
the individual caused a loss to the Government without obtaining the
necessary expenditure. Therefore, the charge is also framed as if the
government has to pay the money. No conspiracy or collusion is alleged
against the petitioners.
21. Given this position, there was absolutely no communication
from the Government of Puducherry between 2017 and 2019, even when
further inspections were conducted to the petitioners. No communication was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
issued to the petitioners against the installation of the high mast lights.
Neither the local authorities were instructed to remove them or question why
they were erected.
22. On the contrary, the report from the Commissioner reveals
that electricity connections have been established for the High Mast Lights,
which are currently in operation. The connections were taken by the Local
bodies in their name. The learned Additional Government Pleader argues that
these connections were made only for testing purposes. However, the learned
counsel for the petitioners presents periodic electricity bill statements to
support the assertion that many of these lights are burning continuously and
are in regular use. Thus, it can be seen that apart from the absence of
accusation of collusion or conspiracy, there is also a positive action from the
local bodies in making use of the installations of the petitioners.
23. In this factual background, when both sides are on the wrong
side of the law, this Court, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, should proceed only in the public interest.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
Therefore, neither the claim of the petitioners can be accepted, nor can the
Government of Puducherry, after accepting the services and goods of the
petitioners, can be permitted to assert that it will not pay any amount. The
Director of Local Administration, along with the Commissioner of the
concerned Municipality, or the official of Local Body concerned, with one
official not below the rank of Executive Engineer from the Public Works
Department, shall inspect each of the High Mast/Mini mast lights. If it is
found to be necessary and useful to the location, as per the valuation that was
made by the Advocate Commissioners, shall pay the amount to the locations.
If the works are incomplete then such proportionate amounts be paid and the
balance work can be completed by the local body concerned. Wherever, the
officials find that the installations, as unnecessary and not useful for the
general public, the petitioners shall be informed in writing and the petitioners
shall be entitled to remove their materials. The inspection be done in the
presence of the petitioners or their representatives if they choose to be present
on the dates intimated by the authorities. The above will align with the
equitable principle of quantum meruit as also the principles as per Section 70
of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. On the contrary, the impugned orders
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
totally denying any amount to the petitioners cannot be sustained. On the one
hand, the Government cannot use the High Mast/Mini Mast Lights though
installed without proper procedure and deny the payment also on the ground
of propriety. They cannot now return all the goods after their usage for about
eight years.
24. In view thereof, the Writ Petitions are disposed of on the
following terms:
(i) The impugned orders bearing ref: No.1215/PADSTDC/EW/2023-24
dated 10.07.2023 shall stand quashed;
(ii) The Director of Local Administration, along with the Commissioner of
the concerned Municipality, or the official of Local Body concerned, with
one official not below the rank of Executive Engineer from the Public
Works Department, shall inspect each of the High Mast/Mini mast lights
installed by the petitioners and as mentioned in the Advocate
Commissioner’s report;
(iii) If they find the installation of High Mast/Mini Mast Light is
appropriate and useful in the location to the general public, then as per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
valuation that was made by the Advocate Commissioners, the petitioners
be paid for the installations;
(iv) If the works are incomplete also then such proportionate amounts be
paid as per the Advocate Commissioner’s report and the balance work can
be completed by the local body concerned;
(v) Wherever, the officials find that the installations, as unnecessary and
not useful for the general public, the petitioners shall be informed in
writing and the petitioners shall be entitled to remove their materials;
(vi) The inspection be done in the presence of the petitioners or their
representatives if they choose to be present on the dates intimated by the
authorities;
(vii)The inspection shall be carried out within twelve weeks from the date
of receipt of the web copy of the order without waiting for the certified
copy of the order;
(viii)Upon completion of the exercise, due orders can be passed intimating
the amount due to the petitioners and the locations were the petitioners
have to dismantle and take back their belongings;
(ix)The amount as above shall be paid within a period of 12 weeks from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
the date of such order. If the exercise is completed as per the above, the
petitioners will not be entitled to any further interest. If the above process
is delayed by the respondents then the petitioners will be entitled for 6%
interest on the amounts found due from today.
(x) No costs.
01.04.2025
Neutral Citation : No
dna
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
To
1.The Chief Secretary
Government of Pondicherry
Pondicherry.
2.The Secretary
Department of Finance
Government of Pondicherry
Public Works Department
Puducherry 605 005.
3.The Secretary
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department
Government of Pondicherry
Pondicherry.
4.The Director
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department
Government of Pondicherry
Pondicherry.
5.The Managing Director
Pondicherry Adi Dravidar Development
Corporation (PADCO), No.30, II Cross
Pon Nagar, Rediyarpalayam, Pondicherry.
6.D.Ragunathan
Officer on Special Duty
Police Department (Retired)
No.9, Sai Street, 9th Cross, Krishna
Nagar, Puducherry.8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
dna
W.P.Nos.24664 & 24666 of 2023
01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 09:03:42 pm )
