Madras High Court
D.Murugavel vs The Commissioner on 18 November, 2025
W.P.No.43236 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.No.43236 of 2025
D.Murugavel ... Petitioner
Vs
The Commissioner,
Tiruvarur Municipality,
Tiruvarur,
Tiruvarur District. ... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the first respondent herein to
consider representation dated 17.09.2025 and take appropriate action in
accordance with law within a time frame as fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraiswamy
For Respondent : Dr.T.Seenivasan, SGP
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:51 pm )
W.P.No.43236 of 2025
ORDER
Heard Dr.T.Seenivasan, appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The petitioner is a class one contractor. He claims that he has done works
for several municipalities. He participated in a tender in the year 2013 for
construction of a bus stand in Tiruvarur. The tender was called by the respondent.
He was successful in the tender and work was allocated to him on 06.03.2013. The
value of the work being Rs.6,59,89,145/-. The petitioner in terms of conditions of
a contract had furnished a fixed deposit of Rs.10,62,361/-, withheld amount of
Rs.44,08,963/- and earnest deposit of Rs.12,12,000/-. In all the respondent
withheld an amount of Rs.66,83,324/- and released a payment of Rs.5,93,05,821/-.
Despite repeated demands the undisputed amounts were not released to the
petitioner. Hence, he came forward with this writ petition.
3. When the matter came up for admission on 12.11.2025, Dr.T.Seenivasan
took notice for the respondent and sought time to get instructions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:51 pm )
4. He has been instructed by the sole respondent on 13.11.2025 stating that
a criminal complaint had been lodged with the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption (in short ‘DVAC’) in Cr.No.4 of 2021 and hence the payments have
been withheld. As the complaint was given in the year 2021 and since more than
four years had passed, I called upon Dr.T.Seenivasan to contact DVAC and get
instructions as to what was the final action taken in Cr.No.4 of 2021 and posted
the matter today.
5. When I took up the matter Dr.T.Seenivasan reports that, DVAC has not
advised any criminal action against the petitioner but has recommended
departmental action against certain officials who were responsible for the
construction of the bus stand. DVAC also is said to have recommended
blacklisting of the writ petitioner and thereby preventing him from going for any
further participation in tenders.
6. The point remains that there is no order either by the Criminal Court or
any prohibitory order invoking the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:51 pm )
1973 or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 preventing repayment of
the admitted amounts set forth above. As long as there is no order on proceedings
preventing payment of the admitted amount, the respondent is not entitled to retain
the same.
7. The judgment cited by Mr.Doraiswamy, in the State of Chhattisgarh and
ors. Vs. Baba Vishwanath Construction and anr. in W.A.No.123 of 2025 dated
18.02.2025 is applicable in full force to the facts of the case. The Division Bench
while dismissing a writ appeal preferred by the State as against the order passed by
the Single Judge directing payment of the disputed amounts to the contractor held
as follows “the appellants cannot be permitted to withhold the payment of
respondent No.1 for the work done by him based on the work order issued by one
of the officials of the State Government. Such act on the part of the authorities is
arbitrary and if any procedure irregularity is committed by the then Executive
Engineer, it is for the State Government to take action in accordance with law
against such officer, however, it has been reflected that no action is taken against
the official at fault.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:51 pm )
8. The Division Bench had placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Construction Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and ors. reported in 2019 16 SCC 794 and the classic judgment in ABL
International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.,
reported in 2004 3 SCC 553.
9. The amount of the petitioner withheld by the respondent is not an amount
in dispute. As pointed out earlier the only ground on which the amount was
withheld was on account of proceedings pending before the DVAC. When DVAC
itself had dropped the proceedings, the respondent ought not to have denied the
repayment of the amount which rightfully belongs to the petitioner.
10. In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition is ordered. The
amount of Rs.66,83,324/- shall be refunded to the petitioner within one week from
today. It is not as if the respondent is going to make payment afresh. The fixed
deposit has been given by the petitioner to the respondent. The withheld amount is
beyond the period for which the performance guarantee is given by the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:51 pm )
petitioner. The construction is of the year 2013 and despite the passage of twelve
years, a citizen has been denied what is rightfully his due.
11. Call for compliance on 27.11.2025.
18.11.2025
rap
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
The Commissioner,
Tiruvarur Municipality,
Tiruvarur,
Tiruvarur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:51 pm )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
rap
18.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:51 pm )
