Disposed

V.Selvaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC16 Mar 2016WP/9844/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the District Collector to examine the grievance regarding a Village Panchayat President and initiate proceedings accordingly after giving notice to all concerned parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to examine the grievance, call for reports, and proceed in accordance with law after notice to the petitioner and 8th respondent within three months.

V.Selvaraj Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 16.03.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.9844 of 2016

¶6

V.Selvaraj ...Petitioner
Vs.
1 State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government Rural
Development Department Fort St. George
Chennai-600 009
2 The Director
Rural Development Department Saidapet
Panagal Maligai Chennai-600 015
3 The District Collector
Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai
4 The District Executive
Engineer National Highways Department
Office Tiruvannamalai
5 The Deputy Director
Rural Development Agency
Tiruvannamalai District
6 The Project Director
Rural Development Agency
Tiruvannamalai District
7 The Commissioner
Rural Wing Kalasapakkam Union
Tiruvannamalai
8 Mrs. Alamelu ...Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondents R-4 to R-8 on the basis of the petitioner complaints to the 3rd respondent receipts bearing No. KK/15/031659 KK/15/031714 and KK/15/031719 dated 29.06.2015 within a time frame fixed by this court.

¶8

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

¶9

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Sathia Chandran For Respondents :Mr.R.Rajeswaran, Spl.G.P for R1 to 7

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the 3^rd respondent to take action against the respondents 4 to 8. Respondents 4 to 7 are Government Officials and the 8^th respondent is a Village Panchayat President.

¶12

The grievance made in the writ petition as well as in the representations given by the petitioner and other villagers dated 29.06.2015, 14.07.2015 and 07.09.2015 is directed against the 8^th respondent. The reason for seeking a direction against the respondents 4 to 7 is by alleging that the 8^th respondent is actively assisted by respondents 4 to 7.

¶13

Since this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the 8^th respondent and in the absence of the officials who are holding the post of respondents 4 to 7 have not been impleaded in the personal capacity, the allegation made by the petitioner are not gone into. However, it is pointed out that based on the complaint given by one other person of the same village by name S.Govindasamy by complaint dated 27.07.2015, the Assistant Director of Panchayat had issued a memo dated 31.07.2015 calling upon the 8^th respondent to produce the Panchayat accounts before him on 21.08.2015 at 3.00 p.m. However, the petitioner would state that no report was submitted by Assistant Director to the District Collector and the matter has been put in cold storage.

¶14

From the copies of representations filed in the typed set of papers, it is seen that there are several signatories to the representation including the petitioner and it is focused as if the representations are the voice of the public of the village. In such circumstances, the 3^rd respondent has to examine as to whether there is any merit in the representation. In fact there appears to be certain steps taken in the said direction since the Assistant Director has called for Panchayat accounts. It appears that further proceedings were not initiated as neither the petitioner nor the other complainant Govindaswamy has been intimated about the steps taken thereafter.

¶15

In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the 3^rd respondent should look into the matter especially when the representations have been submitted during the grievance meeting.

¶16

In the light of the above, without going into the merits of allegations of the petitioner, there shall be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to look into the grievance of the petitioner

¶17

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

¶18

made vide several representations which has been referred supra, call for necessary report from subordinate officers and proceed in accordance with law after notice to the petitioner and 8^th respondent and all others who are concerned in the matter. The above direction be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

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

¶20

s/d-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶22

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1 The Secretary to Government
Rural Development Department Fort St. George
Chennai-600 009
2 The Director
Rural Development Department Saidapet
Panagal Maligai Chennai-600 015
3 The District Collector
Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai
4 The District Executive
Engineer National Highways Department
Office Tiruvannamalai
5 The Deputy Director
Rural Development Agency Tiruvannamalai
District
6 The Project Director
Rural Development Agency Tiruvannamalai
District
7 The Commissioner
Rural Wing Kalasapakkam Union
Tiruvannamalai
+ 1 cc to Mr.S.Sathia Chandran, Advocate SR 16747
ca(co)
prk28/3 Writ Petition No.9844 of 2016

¶23

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

V.Selvaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Selvaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu

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

The Management of Vs Thiru. M.Angu Naidu

V.Ranjith Vs Praveen Ranjan IPS

R.Radhakrishnan Vs The Commissioner

The Management of Addison & Co. Vs the Joint Commissioner of

N.Janakiraman Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.N.Subramanian Vs The Appellate Authority/ The