w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

TEXMAK Engineers represented by its Partner, B. Somasundaram v/s The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others

    W.P.No.11074 of 2006

    Decided On, 07 February 2011

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras


    For the Petitioner: AL. Ganthimathi, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Gopinathan, Additional Government Pleader.

Judgment Text

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith pay the sum of Rs.6,34,000/- towards interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 19.09.2002 to 27.03.2004 for the delayed payment for execution of work of "Renewal of Radial Shutters in Scouring Sluice Vent Nos. 4 and 5 in Grand Anaicut at Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, to pay a sum of Rs.6,34,000/-, towards interest due to the petitioner, at the rate of 15% per annum, for the delayed payment made by the respondents for the execution of works relating to the renewal of the Radial Shutters, in scouring sluice Vent Nos.4 and 5, in Grand Anaicut, at Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District.

2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had placed before this Court, the copy of the letter, dated 29.09.2004, issued by the third respondent, denying the request of the petitioner. It had also been submitted that the said letter had been communicated to the petitioner, on 06.10.2004, as directed by this Court, in W.P.No.25213 of 2004. He had also placed a copy of the Registered Post, with 'Acknowledgment Due', to show that the petitioner had received a copy of the letter, dated 29.09.2004, issued by the third respondent. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner, in the present Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

costs. However, it would open to the petitioner to challenge the letter of the third respondent, dated 29.09.2004, if so advised, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law.