Disposed

S.Rangaraj, M/a 52 Yrs v. The Principal Secretary to

Madras HC21 Mar 2016WP/10331/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 224 sought directions to consider a representation alleging illegal restoration of power to a Village Panchayat President. The court disposed of the petition by directing the District Collector to call the Panchayat President to notice and decide the matter within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation after notice to the 3rd respondent and hearing her within three months.

S.Rangaraj, M/a 52 Yrs Vs The Principal Secretary to — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.10331 of 2016

¶6

S.Rangaraj

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
District Collectorate,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
3. Mrs.T.R.Indirani,
The Village Panchayat President,
Tholam Palayam village,
Mettu Palayam Taluk,
Coimbatore – 641 113. ..Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents herein to take appropriate action as against the 3^rd respondent herein in accordance with law on considering the petitioner's final representation dated 21.01.2016 within a stipulated period of time.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ganesha Moorthy For Respondents : Mr.R.Razeswaran, Spl.Govt.Pleader

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Razeswaran, Special Government Pleader, who accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2.

¶13

2. The petitioner, claiming himself to be a resident of Tholam Palayam village, has filed this writ petition to direct the 2 nd respondent to consider his representation dated

¶14

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

¶15

21.1.2016, in which, the petitioner has made several allegations against the 3 rd respondent, who is the President of the village Panchayat.

¶16

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the 2 nd respondent - District Collector framed charges against the 3 rd respondent and her power to sign the Panchayat Cheques were divested and handed over to the Block Development Officer, subsequently, without considering the seriousness of the matter, the power has been restored in favour of the 3 rd respondent by order dated 16.11.2015. On coming to know of it, the petitioner has given several representations pointing out various illegalities, the last of which, having been made on 21.1.2016, which is stated to be pending before the respondents. Since this writ petition has been disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the 3 rd respondent, the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner are not gone into and left open to be considered by the 2 nd respondent.

¶17

4. In the light of the same, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2 nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.1.2016 after notice to the 3 rd respondent and after hearing the 3 rd respondent and orders shall be passed thereon on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To:

¶19

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009, 2. The District Collector, District Collectorate, Coimbatore – 641 018. + 1 cc to Mr.B.Ganesha Moorthy, Advocate Sr 17773 + 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, Sr 18681 KR/28/3/16

¶20

WP.No.10331/2016

¶21

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

S.Rangaraj, M/a 52 Yrs v. The Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rangaraj, M/a 52 Yrs v. The Principal Secretary to

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

P.Preetha, Vs The State Commissioner for

M.Mani Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

G.Thangarasu Vs The District Collector

The Superintending Engineer, Vs M.Kanniapan, Forman Grade I

D.Selvakumar Vs the District Collector

D.Vijayalakshmi Vs The Chief Election Officer