This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 09.12.2016, wherein and whereby the contract awarded to the petitioner for maintaining street lights at Karaikudi Municipality, was cancelled on the reason that the petitioner has not maintained the street lights properly, even after the receipt of several complaints from the public and issuing notice by the respondents to the petitioner on several occasions, calling upon the petitioner to correct their maintenance work with the satisfaction of the public.
2.This writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that the principles of natural justice has been violated before passing the impugned order. In other words, it is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not put on notice before cancelling the contract.
3.This writ petition is opposed by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit by the second respondent. It is stated therein that several complaints were received from the public against the poor maintenance of the street lights by the petitioner and despite issuing notices on 10.06.2016, 08.07.2016, 06.09.2016 and 23.09.2016 calling upon the petitioner to attend the grievance of the public immediately on day today basis, the petitioner did not heed either to the complaints of the public or to the notices sent by the second respondent. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order was passed only after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court.
5.It is seen that the impugned order came to be passed based on the reasons set out therein viz., the petitioner did not maintain the street lights properly, in spite of repeated complaints made by the public. It is further seen in the impugned order itself that the second respondent issued notices to the petitioner then and there, on receipt of such complaints from the public. The said statement made in the impugned order is also supported by the notices sent by the second respondent, that are made available in the typed set of papers filed by the second respondent along with the counter affidavit. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned order was passed only after following the principles of natural justice. If the petitioner has not corrected himself and attended the maintenance work properly, their could be no other option for the second respondent except to cancel the contract, which has been rightly done in this case. This Court also takes note of the fact that some councillors attended the council meeting with hurricane light symbolically indicating the poor maintenance of the street lights by the Corporation. Therefore, I find that the action of the second respondent in passing the impugned order does not warrant any interference much less while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6.Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
To
1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Elizhagam, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi .