BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA and W.M.P(MD)No.26911 of 2025 Abdullah ... Petitioner Vs.

The District Forest Officer, District Forest Office, Court Campus, Trichy. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for records relating to Na.Ka.no. 8988/2021/L dated 13.11.2025 on the file of the respondent herein quash the same on the ground that illegal and arbitrary consequently direct the respondents to refund sum of Rs. 3,21,627/- with 12 percent interest which has been deposited by petitioner and thus render justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Joel Paul Antony For Respondent : Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for records relating to Na.Ka.no. 8988/2021/L dated 13.11.2025 on the file of the respondent herein quash the same on the ground that illegal and arbitrary consequently direct the respondents to refund sum of Rs.3,21,627/- with 12 percent interest which has been deposited by petitioner and thus render justice.”

2. Mr.A.Kannan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

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

4. The petitioner would submit that he is the registered contractor who had applied for the contract work for cutting the Eucalyptus trees. He had participated in the bid auction on 20.08.2025 and deposited a sum of Rs.96,000/- towards EMD (Earnest Money Deposit). He was the only person who had participated in the bid for a sum of Rs.9,65,000/-.

On 21.08.2025, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.2,25,627/- in favour of the respondent and totally 1/3^rd bid amount of Rs.3,21,627/- was paid by the petitioner.

5. On 19.09.2025, the petitioner had received a letter from the respondent directing him to deposit the balance bid amount of Rs.11,350,41/- within one week from the date of receipt of the letter. However, there was no calculation sheet attached to the original tender notice on 27.06.2025. The petitioner sent a detailed reply stating that the respondent herein were demanding money more than what was fixed at the time of tender auction date. However, to this there was no response. 6. The petitioner would further submit that he had sent a representation on 11.10.2025, requesting refund of the bid amount deposited by him on 20.08.2025 and 21.08.2025. However, the said request has been rejected. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

8. The respondent has turned down the request made by the petitioner on the following grounds:-

Vy epge;jid dg;o Vyk; vLf;Fk; Kd;dh; VykpLk;

“ 4-

njhl;lji; j nehpy; brdW; ghh;itapl mwpt[Wj;jg;glL; s;sJ/ ghh;it kw;Wk; y; Fwpg;gpl;l fojj;jpy; bjhptpj;Js;sitfs;

3 4 njhl;lj;jpd; Vyji; j ,uj;J bra;jpl bjhptpf;fg;gl;l bra;jpfshfnt cs;sJ/ njhll;ji; j nehpy; ghh;j;J kfNy; Fwpj;J jpUg;jp mile;J ,ju tpra';fs; Fwpj;J jpUg;jp mile;j gpdd; h; jhd; Vyk; vLj;Js;sPh;fs;/ vdnt. Vyj;ij vf;fhuzk; bfhz;Lk; ,uj;J bra;a KoahJ/ vdnt. ghh;it

1-

y; Fwpg;gplL; s;s fojj;jpy; Fwpg;gpl;Lss; bjhiffis chpa tlo;a[ld; f;Fs; brYj;jhtpoy; nkw;go ijykuj;

30.11.2025-

njhl;lj;jpw;F eP';fs; brYj;jpa[s;s bjhif muRf;F gwpKjy;

bra;ag;gLk; vd bjuptpf;fg;gLfpd;wJ/

(forfeited to Government)

nkYk; c';fsJ bgah; gjpt[g; bgw;w Fj;jifjhuh; gl;oaypy; ,Ue;J ePf;fk; bra;a eltofi; f vLf;fg;gLk;/ m";ry; xg;g[jy; ml;il ,f;fojj;jpid bgwW; f; bfhz;likf;fhd xg;g[jyhf VwW; f;bfhs;sg;gLk;/”

9. A perusal of the tender rules particularly Rule Nos.6 and 7 which is extracted herein below:-

nkw;fz;lthW njhl;lj;jpid VybkLf;fg;gLk; gl;rj;jpy;

“6.

Mk; Mz;ow;F murhy; eph;zak; bra;ag;gLk; tpiy

2025-2026 tpfpjj;jpd; mog;gila