1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.1175 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 T.Aatham Malik : Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector Dindigul District Dindigul 2. The Block Development Officer Kodaikanal Dindigul District 3. Thiru. Joseph Arockiyaraj : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ impugned order issued by the 2nd / 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 3066/2010/A3, dated 19.01.2011 and quash the same as illegal. For petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition challenging the order of the 2nd / 3rd respondent, dated 19.01.2011, in which, the petitioner is the registered contractor with the Kodaikanal Panchayat Union and his contract registration itself is cancelled. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the registration cannot be cancelled without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his case and admittedly, the order is passed without notice and they have not followed the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Preparation of Plans and Mode and Conditions of Contracts) Rules, 1998 issued under Section 242 of the Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Panchayats Act, 1994 and therefore, the order, dated 19.01.2011 is liable to be set aside. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In that counter affidavit, they would contend that there are two orders passed, on 19.01.2001. One order is to cancel the various contracts given to the contractor and second one is that the petitioner's name was removed from the contractors' list. According to them, in view of the cancellation of the contract, this order was a consequential order, mentioned as reference No.7 in the impugned order. Therefore, there was no notice necessary and hence, the order is valid under law. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the order, dated 19.01.2001, which is mentioned as reference No.7 in the impugned order, never served on the petitioner. 5. Heard Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents. 6. The short point for consideration is that the impugned order, in which, the registration of the contractor has been cancelled without following the procedure as contemplated under law. In this connection, it is worthwhile to extract the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Preparation of Plans and Mode and Conditions of Contracts) Rules, 1998 issued under Section 242 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 vide Rule 13(7) : “The names of the contractors may be removed from the register of contractors by the executive authority of Commissioner or Secretary, as the case may be, fir any proved misconduct or for any financial incapacity or for any other reasons: Provided that before ordering the removal of the name of any contractor from the register, a notice in writing shall be given to him to show cause aginst scuh removal and his explanation he obtained in writing for consdieration, and place the details for consideration of the village panchayat or panchyat union council or district panchayat, as the case may be.” 7. For removal of any contractor's name, a notice should be given to the petitioner and after obtaining objections, the same should be placed for consideration by the Village panchayat or Panchayat Union Council or the District Panchayat as the case may be. 8. In this case as rightly poinetd out by the petitioner, the procedure is not followed by the respondents and there is no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 referrence in the impugned order for passing of the same with the concerned authorities. He would also contend that he was not given any notice, which of-course is disputed by the respondent. Even then, the procedure as contemplated under law has not been followed. Therefore, the order is vitiated. 9. The learned Government Advocate only contended that it is a consequential order and the cancellation of the contract is totally different from removal from the registration. 10. In view of the above, the order in question which only cancels the registration, is legally not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. 11. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that another order, namely 19.01.2001, which was passed on the same day, which cancels the contract, has not been served on him and he may be permitted to challenge the said order. 12. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. It is always open to the petitioner to challenge the other order, dated 19.01.2001. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector Dindigul District Dindigul 2. The Block Development Officer Kodaikanal Dindigul District +1 CC to Mr.K.Balasubramanian, Advocate (SR.No.6916) W.P.(MD).No.1175 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 14.03.2011 vsg NSV/1.4.2011/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/