Judgment :- 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 Councillor. 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 011. 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, Petitioners registration of contract was cancelled by the third respondent by Resolution No.12 dated 211. 2006. The second Respondent issued the proceedings dated 012. 2006, cancelling the Petitioners registration from the panel, which is challenged in this Writ Petition as arbitrary and unsustainable. 3. The second Respondent – Executive Officer of Thevur Town Panchayat has filed counter affidavit contending that by the request of the petitioner to cancel his registration, the second Respondent panchayat sustained loss, since at that time, the petitioner was entrusted with drainage work, which is to be completed within one month from the date of tender. It is alleged that the petitioner commenced the work and stopped it in the middle, since he submitted his letter for cancelling his name as registered Civil Contractor for the panchayat. Since the petitioner disqualified himself to be a registered contractor, his application to register him as a registered civil contractor again, was rejected by resolution no.12 dated 211. 2006. 4. Heard both. 5. Since the petitioner disqualified himself to be a registered contractor, his application to register him as a registered civil contractor again, was rejected by resolution no.12 dated 211. 2006. 4. Heard both. 5. 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 211. 2006 and the impugned proceedings dated 012. 2006 is only consequential and the same cannot be challenged. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was one of the registered contractors of the second Respondent Town Panchayat for about 15 years and that he has produced necessary Solvency Certificate and other documents for being in the panel of the Contractors. Equally, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has executed number of items of work satisfactorily, as is seen from the Performance Certificate issued by the second Respondent. There is nothing on record to show that execution of the entrusted contract work by the petitioner was unsatisfactory. .7. It is no doubt true that the petitioner gave a letter dated 22.09.2006 to the second Respondent to cancel his registration as a civil contractor of panchayat, since he desired to contest the local body election held in the month of October 2006. At that time, he was entrusted with a contract worth Rs.2,50,000/-under the 12th Finance Scheme 2005-2006, i.e. he was entrusted with the drainage work from Sithan Shop to Helper Seerangam House and then Muthukumaran house. Since the petitioner wanted to contest the election, he himself made a request to cancel his registration and the work entrusted to him. Pursuant to his request and to enable the petitioner to contest the election, his registration was cancelled. If the Panchayat were to suffer loss on account of the stoppage of entrusted work, at that time, the second Respondent could have very well declined to cancel the registration or the second Respondent could have called upon the petitioner to make good the loss in lieu of such cancellation. But that was not done. Petitioners Licence and the entrusted drainage work was cancelled on the request of the petitioner by proceedings dated 23.09.2006, in which the petitioner was informed that if there is any objection from the Audit, he will be held liable for damages. But that was not done. Petitioners Licence and the entrusted drainage work was cancelled on the request of the petitioner by proceedings dated 23.09.2006, in which the petitioner was informed that if there is any objection from the Audit, he will be held liable for damages. So far, no such action seems to have been taken against the petitioner. 8. While the registration of contract and entrustment of work was cancelled pursuant to the request of the petitioner, there was no impediment in consideration of the petitioners request for his registration again. When the petitioner submitted application for registration, without assigning any reason, Petitioners application was rejected. In my considered view, such rejection of application is arbitrary and unsustainable. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned Order of cancellation of the Petitioners registration from the list appears to be activated due to political rivalry. As the impugned Order is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, the same cannot be sustained. 9. The impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 012. 2006 is quashed. The respondents are directed to register the petitioner as a registered contractor in the panel of registered civil contractors maintained by the second respondent. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.