Disposed

T.K. Subramani v. The District Collector cum

Madras HC7 Mar 2016WP/26251/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to conclude proceedings under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1995. Court directed obtaining forensic report within four weeks, failing which proceedings must continue independently, with completion within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing District Collector to obtain forensic report within four weeks; failing which, proceed independently with Section 205 proceedings under Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1995, to be completed within

T.K. Subramani Vs The District Collector cum — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07-03-2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

W.P.No.26251 of 2015

T.K. Subramani

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat Erode District, Erode.

¶10

The Block Development Officer, Bhavani Sagar, Erode District.

¶11

Nagaraj The President Kothamangalam Village Panchayat Kothamangalam Bhavani Sagar Taluk Erode District. .. Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to conclude the proceedings initiated under Na.Ka.No.3732/2012 A2 dated 05-11-2012 within a time frame as stipulated by this Court and pass orders.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. R. Jayaprakash For Respondents : Mr. R. Rajeswaran, Spl.G.P. For RR1 and 2

¶14

*** ORDER

¶15

The petitioner, who is a resident of the Village Thayirpallam, which falls within the jurisdiction of Kothamangalam Village Panchayat seeks for a direction to the first respondent to conclude the proceedings initiated against the third respondent under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1995. All that the petitioner wants to ensure is that the proceedings initiated by the District Collector has to be taken to its logical end, so that the culprits can be brought to book.

¶16

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

¶17

In the counter filed by the Block Development Officer, the second respondent herein, it is stated that the Collector cannot proceed further unless and until the forensic report is received from the Forensic Laboratory, Chennai in respect of a criminal case registered against the third respondent in Crime No.55 of 2012 for offences under Sections 120(b), 406, 408 of IPC on the file of the District Crime Branch, Erode. It is rather surprising to note that such a stand has been taken by the District Collector, when normally proceedings under Section 205 of the Act are independent to the criminal proceedings initiated. Furthermore, the counter affidavit does not state as to on what date the cheques were sent for specimen signature to the Forensic Laboratory, Chennai by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode. Thus, this Court can safely presume that the third respondent is being shielded or there is lethargy in the action initiated against the third respondent. That apart, the counter affidavit does not specifically reveal as to the impact of the report of the Forensic Laboratory on the proceedings initiated under Section 205 of the Act.

¶18

In the light of the above, this Court proposes to issue the following directions:

¶19

The first respondent is directed to immediately look into the matter and ensure that the Forensic Report is obtained within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which he shall independently proceed with the matter initiated by him under Section 205 of the Act. It is made clear that the criminal proceedings shall be conducted separately.

¶20

The District Collector shall endeavour to complete the entire proceedings after a period of eight weeks on expiry of the four weeks' time granted.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

glp Sd/Asst.Registrar

¶23

/true copy/

¶24

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat Erode District Erode

¶28

The Block Development Officer Bhavani Sagar Erode District

¶29

The President Kothamangalam Village Panchayat Kothamangalam Bhavani Sagar Taluk Erode District

¶30

1 CC TO Mr. R.Jayaprakash, ADVOCATE SR 14570 + 1 CC TO THE GOVT.PLEADER, SR 14965 KR/18/3/16 W.P.No.26251 of 2015

¶31

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

T.K. Subramani v. The District Collector cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K. Subramani v. The District Collector cum

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

S.S.Manoharan Vs The Chairman

Mr.Mohammed Moosa, Vs the Presiding Officer

Mr. a.Selvamani, Vs The Chairman

S.Krishnasamy Vs Hemanath

Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Appellate Authority

Y.J.Bakir Vs Chennai Metropolitan