M GURUSAMY Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to register the name of the petitioner as a registered civil contractor and enroll him in the panel of registered contractors maintained by the second respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner has been one of the registered contractors of the THEvur Panchayat for about 15 years. Petitioner has renewed his registration every year by paying the prescribed fee and enclosing the required documents and the petitioner has done several items of work. By letter dated 22. 09. 2006, petitioner requested the second respondent to cancel him as a registered civil contractor, as the petitioner wished to contest in the local body election held in the month of October 2006. THE petitioner contested for the post of Councillor from 5th Ward, THEvur Panchayat as a candidate of AIADMK party. But the petitioner was defeated by the fourth respondent, who contested as a candidate of Pattali Makkal Katchi and has been elected to the post of Councillo r. Since the petitioner lost in the election, he has decided to resume the work of being registered civil contractor with the second respondent Town Panchayat. THErefore, the petitioner gave a letter dated 08. 11. 2006 to the second Respondent requesting the second Respondent to re-register the petitioner as a registered civil contractor and the petitioner had also paid the required registration fee. Instead of considering the application of the petitioner, Petitioner's registration of contract was cancelled by the third respondent by Resolution no. 12 dated 23. 11. 2006. THE second Respondent issued the proceedings dated 08. 12. 2006, cancelling the Petitioner's registration from the panel, which is challenged in this Writ Petition as arbitrary and unsustainable.

(3.) TAKING me through the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the second respondent has submitted that since the petitioner disqualified himself to be a registered contractor, his registration of contract was cancelled by the third respondent by resolution no. 12 dated 23. 11. 2006 and the impugned proceedings dated 08. 12. 2006 is only consequential and the same cannot be challenged.