P.Suresh v. The Commissioner

JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This intra-court appeal calls into question the legality and correctness of the order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26067 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, an elected Ward Councillor of Ward No.30, Kancheepuram City Municipal Corporation, seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the Tender Notification dated 07.08.2024 and the consequential Work Order dated

09.10.2024 issued by the first respondent/Corporation in favour of the third respondent for the execution of civil refurbishments at the Perarignar Anna Bus Stand, Kancheepuram, was dismissed.

2.1. The genesis of the dispute lies in an infrastructure modernization initiative sanctioned under the Operation and Maintenance Deficit Grant Fund 2024–25 (Phase II). On

22.07.2024, the second respondent accorded administrative sanction for the "Renovation of Perarignar Anna Bus Stand" at an estimated expenditure of Rs.80.00 Lakhs, funded on a 50:50 cost-sharing pattern between State Government grant funds and Municipal Corporation revenues.

2.2. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent/Commissioner published an e-tender notification on 07.08.2024. The third respondent participated as the sole tenderer and quoted a price

3.31% below the estimated value. The Tender Scrutiny Committee evaluated the bid and, in exercise of its discretion conferred under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, accepted the bid on 18.09.2024 and issued the work order on 09.10.2024.

3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the issuance the tender and execution of the contract is without the prior approval from the elected Municipal Council as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and the Rules framed thereunder.

2.2. Learned counsel for the appellant seriously disputed the fact that the work was executed in March, 2025, as recorded in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In support of this submission, it was emphasized that the matter was placed before the Municipal Council for approval only subsequently and, this fact, falsifies the respondents' claim of prior execution.

¶3Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the administrative sanction emanated from a high-level State Monitoring authority. They further made an unequivocal assertion before this Court that the work in question had already been fully executed in accordance with the contractual stipulations and the renovated facility stands thrown open for public utility.

¶4At the very outset, it is pertinent to observe that the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition was restricted strictly to the tender notification dated 07.08.2024 and the consequential work order dated 09.10.2024 awarded to the third respondent.

¶5In view of the categoric statement made by the respondents that the work covered under the impugned work order has already been executed in its entirety, the very substratum of the writ petition seeking to interdict or quash the work order stands completely dissolved. Though learned counsel for the appellant has seriously disputed the factum of execution of the work as of March 2025 by pointing out that the subject was placed before the Municipal Council only thereafter, such factual dispute cannot resuscitate a writ petition directed solely against a work order, when the State instrumentality categorically asserts full completion of the underlying work.

¶6Once the contract stands fully executed and implemented, a challenge directed merely against the initial work order becomes an exercise in futility. As a necessary corollary, the core issues raised in the writ petition and reiterated before this court remain purely academic and we find no reason, in the instant case, to embark upon an inquiry into the rival contentions on the procedural aspects under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and the Rules made thereunder.

¶7In the light of the foregoing discussion, while affirming the dismissal of the writ petition, all the questions of law raised by the appellant regarding the requirement of prior Council approval, statutory interpretation of the Municipal Rules and single-bid evaluations are explicitly left open to be considered and decided in an appropriate case. The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as having been rendered academic. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected interim application stands closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

30.07.2026 Index : : sasi To:

¶1The Commissioner Kancheepuram City Municipal Corporation, Perarignar Anna Maligai, Hospital Road, Kancheepuram - 631 501.

¶2Directorate of Municipal Administration, No.75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, M.R.C.Nagar, RajaAnnamalai Puram, Chennai-600 028. THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,

J.

(sasi)

30.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.07.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN and C.M.P.No.19406 of 2026 P.Suresh No.38/13C, Punniyakoteeshwarar Koil Mada Street, Chinna Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram - 631 501. Appellant(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner Kancheepuram City Municipal Corporation, Perarignar Anna Maligai, Hospital Road, Kancheepuram - 631 501. 2. Directorate of Municipal Administration, No.75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, M.R.C.Nagar, RajaAnnamalai Puram, Chennai-600 028. 3. K.Sudarmani, S/o K.P. Kannan, No.83/26-3, Chairman Swaminathan Street, Pillayar Palayam, Kancheepuram-631 501. Respondent(s) PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26067 of 2025. For Appellant(s): Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy For Respondent(s):Ms.D.Keerthi for Mr.RA.Gopinath Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.K.Kumaran Government Pleader for R2