Disposed

N.Arumugam v. The District Collector

Madras HC11 Aug 2015WP/18498/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking mandamus for authorities to act against a Panchayat President for alleged misappropriation of public funds. Court directed the District Collector to pass appropriate orders on the pending representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to pass appropriate orders on the pending complaint within eight weeks. No costs.

N.Arumugam Vs The District Collector — Money Laundering | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 11.8.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.18498 of 2015

¶6

N.Arumugam ...Petitioner

¶7

– Vs -
1 The District Collector
Vizhupuram Vizhupuram District.
2 The Assistant Director
The Rural Development Department Vizhupuram
Vizhupuram District.
3 The Block Development Officer
Vanoor Block Thiruchitrambalam Koot road
Vizhupuram District.
4 The Panchayat President
Kunnam Village Panchayat Vanoor Taluk
Vizhupuram District ...Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the 4th respondent for the misappropriation of the public funds as provided under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and other penal laws based on the petitioner Complaint dated 13.4.2015.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the 4th respondent for the misappropriation of the public funds as provided under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and other penal laws based on the petitioner Complaint dated 13.4.2015.

¶12

The petitioner being a ward member made a complaint on 13.4.2015 seeking to take action against the respondents for misappropriation of public funds.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the information obtained from the Right to Information Act on the application of petitioner dated 13.4.2015 signed by the Information Officer dated 05.06.2015, the Block Development Officer on enquiry found the misappropriation. Consequently, he has prevented respondent No.4 from operating bank account. However, no action has been taken for the alleged misappropriation.

¶14

Considering the same and taking note of the representation of the petitioner dated 13.4.2015 which is pending consideration under respondent No.1, the said authority is directed to pass appropriate orders on the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

kua

¶20

¶21

1 The District Collector Vizhupuram Vizhupuram District.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

2 The Assistant Director The Rural Development Department Vizhupuram Vizhupuram District.

¶24

3 The Block Development Officer Vanoor Block Thiruchitrambalam Koot road Vizhupuram District.

¶25

4 The Panchayat President
Kunnam Village Panchayat Vanoor Taluk
Vizhupuram District
2 CCs to Mr.S.Gunasekaran, Advocate SR.No. 42440
1 CC to Mr.K.Sathyaraj, Advocate SR.No. 41934
1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR.No. 42052
W.P.No. 18498 of 2015
MG (CO)
PSI (25.08.2015)

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.Arumugam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Arumugam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.K.S.Gopalakrishnan Vs The Thasildar

S.Noor Mohamed, Vs The Principal Secretary to the

S.a.Balu Vs The President

Jennay @ Sebastian Vs The Chairman

K.S.Rajkumar Vs The Central Board of

S.Shanthi Priya, Vs the Branch Manager