[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M/S.Sarmas Press (Offset And Digital ... vs Chief Electoral Officer And Principal ... on 9 March, 2026
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.(MD)No.13783 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.(MD)No.13783 of 2022
M/s.Sarmas Press (Offset and Digital Printers),
Represented by its Proprietor,
S.Lalitha, W/o.T.Sivaraman,
No.1, Ganesh Nagar, 4th Street,
Pudukottai - 622 001. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Chief Electoral Officer and Principal Secretary to the Government,
Public (Elections-IV) Department,
Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Election Officer and
the District Collector,
Collector's Office,
Thanjavur - 613 001. ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the
order dated 30.07.2022 bearing R.C.No.1267/2017/G1 of the second respondent
and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to pay
Rs.34,60,500/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Sixty Thousand and Five Hundred
____________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 01:24:10 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.13783 of 2022
only) being the amount payable to the petitioner Firm along with interest at the
rate of 18 % per annum from 01.09.2017 till the date of disbursement to the
petitioner Firm.
[Prayer is amended vide order dated 21.07.2025, made in W.M.P.(MD)No.13157
of 2024]
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharadwajaramasubramaniam
for M/s.Vivtri Law
For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 30.07.2022 bearing
R.C.No.1267/2017-G1 of the second respondent, quash the same and
consequently, direct the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.34,60,500/-, being
the amount payable to the petitioner Firm, along with further interest at the rate of
18% per annum from 01.09.2017 till the date of disbursement.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and upon
perusing the material records of the case, it is the case of the petitioner that when
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 01:24:10 pm )
the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly Elections took place in the year 2016,
on an emergent basis, for printing certain materials such as stationery, posters,
booklets, etc., the Returning Officers, without any tender or written contract,
engaged the services of the petitioner. The petitioner responded to the request on
an emergency basis and supplied the required materials.
3. The petitioner raised detailed invoices mentioning the number of copies
of the booklets printed in respect of each constituency, the rate per copy and the
total amount payable. According to the petitioner, the total claim in respect of all
the six constituencies in Thanjavur District was a sum of Rs.51,10,500/-, out of
which only a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- was disbursed, leaving a balance amount.
4. It is further stated that as and when the amounts were credited by each of
the Returning Officers of the respective constituencies, the petitioner issued due
stamped receipts and also annexed the relevant communication specifying the
invoices against which the payments were being appropriated. The respondents
received the same but did not dispute any further liability at that point of time.
However, in the year 2017, when the petitioner started claiming the balance
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 01:24:10 pm )
amount, the respondents suddenly alleged that the claim was fraudulent and
inflated.
5. The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed representation explaining
and justifying the claim. Subsequently, the respondents constituted a Committee
and the petitioner appeared before the Committee, producing all the relevant
invoices and supporting documents in support of its claim. However, no report of
the Committee was communicated and the amount was not disbursed.
6. When the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus,
the impugned order came to be passed during the pendency of the writ petition
reiterating the earlier stand taken in the year 2017 that the accounts were not
proper and that the petitioner had made fraudulent and inflated claims. According
to the petitioner, such a stand cannot be taken ex post facto after having engaged
the services of the petitioner and having accepted the supplies made.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contends that the
respondents, being authorities of the State, having engaged the services of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 01:24:10 pm )
petitioner and having received the materials supplied, cannot now deny payment.
In the absence of any contemporaneous objection regarding the rates quoted or
the quantity supplied, the claim of the petitioner ought to be treated as admitted
and this Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and direct payment of the amount due. The learned counsel also pleads
that the petitioner being an elderly person, she has been waiting for payment since
the year 2016, and nearly ten years have elapsed.
8. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader, by placing the
compiled records before this Court, would submit that for the printing and other
election-related works, the Government Press was primarily engaged and
supplied the majority of the stationery. Apart from that, for other materials such
as, posters and booklets, a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was sanctioned to
Thanjavur District, which was distributed equally among the eight Assembly
constituencies, with authority given to the respective Returning Officers to utilise
the said amount.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 01:24:10 pm )
9. According to the respondents, the petitioner firm could have been
engaged only within the limits of the funds so allocated. The said amount was
duly paid through bank transfer. The petitioner has subsequently appropriated the
said payments towards only certain invoices and has claimed a balance amount. It
is the further stand of the respondents that as early as in the year 2017, the
petitioner was informed that the claim could not be entertained, as there was no
budget allocation, work order or justification for the same. Since the petitioner
continued to press the claim, the District Collector constituted a Committee. The
Committee recorded statements, examined the invoices and placed the materials
before the District Collector, who thereafter passed the impugned order rejecting
the claim.
10. It is further submitted that subsequently the Government issued G.O.
(D).No.83, Public (Elections-II) Department, dated 19.02.2021, fixing the rates
for printing various items for election purposes. Even if the petitioner's claim is
assessed by applying the said rates, after deducting the amounts already paid and
verifying the invoices, only an additional sum of Rs.69,950/- would be payable.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 01:24:10 pm )
11. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused
the material records of the case.
12. It is true that the respondents, being authorities of the State, cannot act
unfairly towards a supplier who had supplied materials with the legitimate
expectation of payment. At the same time, for this Court to direct payment in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the claim
must either be admitted or the conduct of the respondents must indicate tacit
approval of the rates quoted by the petitioner.
13. In the present case, it is seen from the records that from the very
beginning, the respondents have consistently taken the stand that the amounts
claimed by the petitioner are not acceptable and that the Returning Officers were
empowered to incur expenditure only within the allocated amounts.
14. Though the petitioner cannot be compelled to adopt the rates quoted by
others and may quote his own rates, it is evident that the rates claimed by the
petitioner were never approved nor was the total amount agreed upon by the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 01:24:10 pm )
respondents. The impugned order also raises factual disputes with regard to the
genuineness of the transactions, the correctness of the accounts and the quantum
of the claim. It is also stated that the printing was primarily done only through
Government Press. The printer engaged in respect other two constituencies in
Thanjavur District or other constituencies in the State have not claimed additional
amounts.
15. In view of the above, when there exists a substantial dispute between
the parties with reference to the factual aspects regarding the amount payable and
the rates claimed, this Court is of the view that the matter cannot be adjudicated
in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16. The questions relating to the actual quantity supplied, the correctness of
the invoices, the appropriation of payments made by the Returning Officers and
the admissibility of the rates claimed are all matters which require appreciation of
evidence and, if necessary, cross-examination of witnesses. Therefore, except to
relegate the parties to the Civil Court, this Court is not in a position to grant the
main relief sought for by the petitioner. However, as and when the petitioner files
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 01:24:10 pm )
a civil suit, it will be open to the petitioner to seek exclusion of the period during
which the present writ petition was pending for the purpose of limitation. At the
same time, since it is stated by the respondents themselves that even by applying
the 2021 Government Order rates, a sum of Rs.69,950/- would be payable, the
said amount can be directed to be paid in the meanwhile, though the rates will not
be decisive and it will be open for the parties to contend otherwise before the
Civil Court.
17. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:-
(i) In view of the disputed questions of fact, the prayer to quash the
impugned order and to direct the respondents to pay the balance sum of
Rs.34,60,500/- cannot be granted. It is open to the petitioner Firm to approach the
competent Civil Court to claim the balance amount, if any, due.
(ii) As and when such a suit is filed, it will be open to the petitioner to seek
exclusion of the period spent in prosecuting the present writ petition for the
purpose of limitation.
(iii) In the meanwhile, since the respondents themselves have calculated
that a sum of Rs.69,950/- would be payable by applying the 2021 rates, the said
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 01:24:10 pm )
amount is directed to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 28.06.2022 (the date of filing of the writ
petition) till the date of disbursement. The amount shall be paid within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order without waiting
for the certified copy.
No costs.
09.03.2026
Neutral Citation : No
smn2
To:-
1.The Chief Electoral Officer and Principal Secretary to the Government,
Public (Elections-IV) Department,
Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Election Officer and
the District Collector,
Collector's Office,
Thanjavur - 613 001.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 01:24:10 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
smn2
09.03.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 01:24:10 pm )
