WA(MD)/1705/2024 of District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) Vs S .K .Sukumar on 12 November 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Chief Justice) Mr.K.K.Udayakumar, learned Government Advocate appears for the appellants and Mr. H. Lakshmi Shankar, learned counsel appears for the second respondent. There is no representation on behalf of the first respondent.

2. This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.2002 of 2022, whereby the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the appellants herein to deposit a sum of Rs.94,06,667/- to the credit of O.S.No.66 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows: The first respondent/writ petitioner entered into an __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:00:08 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1705 of 2024 agreement with the appellants for the supply of LED lights. The first respondent/writ petitioner had sourced the supplies from the second respondent. However, the first respondent/writ petitioner failed to settle the bills payable to the second respondent. Therefore, the second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.66 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, seeking recovery of the amount due from the first respondent, which is stated to be pending.

4. In view of the dispute regarding the non-realisation of the amount, the first respondent filed the Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.1,84,99,200/- towards the amount allegedly due under the agreement dated 12.09.2016, refund a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- towards earnest money deposit and return the original expired Bank Guarantee for Rs.25,00,000/- and another Bank Guarantee for Rs.30,00,000/-.

5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the Writ Petition, inasmuch as the agreement dated 12.09.2016 does not contain any arbitration clause. Secondly, he contended that in the absence of an arbitration clause, the only remedy available to the first respondent __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:00:08 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1705 of 2024 would be to approach the competent Civil Court. Thirdly, he submitted that the dispute involves questions of fact relating to the supply of materials and payment of money, which cannot be adjudicated in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when such adjudication would require appreciation of evidence. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent has already filed a suit in O.S.No.66 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, against the first respondent for recovery of the amount due and the same is still pending.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

8. On a perusal of the records, we are of the view that the Writ Petition itself was not maintainable, as the dispute essentially arises __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:00:08 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1705 of 2024 out of a contractual transaction involving supply of materials and payment of money. The determination of the amount payable would necessarily require adjudication of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be undertaken in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent ought to have been relegated to avail the remedy before the appropriate civil court. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge warrants interference.

9. Accordingly, the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.2002 of 2022 is set aside and this Writ Appeal is allowed. However, liberty is granted to the first respondent/writ petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law, if so advised.

10. In the event of the first respondent approaching the competent Civil Court by filing a suit, the period spent in prosecuting the Writ Petition as well as this Writ Appeal before this Court shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation. The remaining period of limitation shall be considered by the competent Court on its own merits and in accordance with law. __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:00:08 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1705 of 2024

11. With the above observations, this Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequenty, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, C.J.) (P.VELMURUGAN J.) 12-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VSM __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:00:08 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1705 of 2024 SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, C.J. AND P.VELMURUGAN, J. VSM WA(MD) No. 1705 of 2024 12-11-2026 __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:00:08 pm )