District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) vs S .K .Sukumar

Court
Madras High Court

WA(MD) No. 1705 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
WA(MD) No. 1705 of 2024
CNR:{HCMD010456162024}
and C.M.P.(MD)No.13132 of 2024
1. District Rural Development Agency (DRDA)
Represented by its Chairman / District Collector
Collectorate campus, Dindigul District 624 004
2. The Project Director
District Rural Development Agency-Dindigul
Collectorate Campus, Dindigul District 624 004
..Appellants
Vs
1. S .K .Sukumar
Proprietor of M/s Start Agro Add No.2/893-1,
th
Ground Floor, VIP Nagar, 8 Cross, RM Colony,
Dindigul 624 001.
2. Rajarajeshwara Constructions
A registered Partnership Firm, Represented by its
Partner. Mr.M.N.Sridhar, Having Office at
No.6C, New No.7C, Directors Colony,
Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.
..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed Under Patent Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
against the order dated 15-12-2023 passed in W.P.(MD).No.2002 of
2022.
__________
Page  1  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:00:08 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1705 of 2024
For Appellants :Mr.K.K.Udayakumar,
Govt. Advocate.
For Respondents : No Appearance for R1
Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar for R2
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
__________
Page  2  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( 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
__________
Page  3  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( 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
__________
Page  4  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( 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.
__________
Page  5  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( 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
__________
Page  6  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( 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
__________
Page  7  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:00:08 pm )