WA(MD)/1720/2026 of RAJENDRAN Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR on 28 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.Velmurugan J.) Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, the appellant/petitioner has filed the present writ appeal.

2. Mr. K.K. Udhayakumar, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents.

3. With the consent of both parties, the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the proceedings of the fifth respondent in Na.Ka. A3/1871/2026, dated 22.09.2026. The __________

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1720 of 2026 learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the extension of time sought by the appellant, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and his earlier representations, did not confer upon him any preferential right to seek consideration of his request by the respondents.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present writ appeal.

6. The appellant submits that he was declared the successful bidder in the tender conducted in 2017 for the removal of Kattukaruvel trees in Pappankulam Kanmai, comprised in Survey No. 111, Pudukkottai Revenue Village, Ilayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. Pursuant to the cutting order dated 06.03.2017, he remitted the bid amount into the Government Treasury. However, he could not complete the work within the stipulated period and, therefore, sought an extension of time.

7. The appellant further submits that he approached this Court by filing W.P. (MD) No. 2943 of 2019, and this Court, by order dated 11.02.2019, issued directions regarding his request. However, according to the appellant, the authorities failed to pass a final order on his representation. He also submits that similarly situated persons were __________

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1720 of 2026 granted extensions of time, including pursuant to the order dated 18.10.2023 passed in W.P. (MD) No. 24412 of 2022.

8. The appellant further contends that, while his request for an extension of time remained pending, the fifth respondent issued a fresh tender notification dated 22.09.2026, published on 23.09.2026, including Pappankulam Kanmai under Serial No. 16. According to the appellant, the authorities failed to consider the earlier cutting order, the bid amount already remitted by him and his repeated representations dated 28.08.2026, 22.09.2026 and 29.09.2026.

9. The appellant, therefore, contends that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant could not complete the work because the lake was filled with water during the relevant period. Hence, the appellant prays that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.10.2026 be set aside and the writ appeal be allowed.

10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. __________

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1720 of 2026

11. It is seen from the records that the appellant participated in the tender with full knowledge of the existing conditions of the lake. Even at the time of issuance of the cutting order dated 06.03.2017, water was present in the lake. Having participated in the tender and obtained the cutting order, the appellant ought to have brought the said circumstance to the notice of the authorities and sought an appropriate extension of time, if necessary, at the relevant point of time.

12. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot now rely upon the presence of water in the lake as a ground to justify his failure to complete the work within the stipulated period. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the appellant in this regard.

13. In view of the foregoing reasons, we find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Court in the present writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

14. However, if the respondents proceed with the fresh tender notification, the appellant is at liberty to participate in the tender, subject __________

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1720 of 2026 to the applicable terms and conditions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.V.,J.) (K.K.R.K.,J.) 28-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AM __________

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1720 of 2026 To

1. The District Collector Office of The Collectorate Sivagangai.Sivagangai

2. The Assistant Director of Panchayat Office of the Assistant Director of Panchayat Collectorate Complex Sivagangai District

3. The Revenue Divisional Office Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer Sivagangai

4. The Thasildar Taluk Office Ilayangudi Sivagangai District

5. The Commissioner Ilayangudi Panchayat Union Ilayangudi sivagangai District __________

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1720 of 2026 P.VELMURUGAN, J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. AM WA(MD) No. 1720 of 2026 28-10-2026 __________

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )