Dismissed

B. Radhakrishnan v. the District Collector

Madras HC3 Nov 2016WP(MD)/20159/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to direct officials to recover misappropriated government funds and initiate criminal proceedings against a former local body member. Court dismissed the petition, holding officials cannot act under the Panchayat Act against a defunct member and such cases require court intervention.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought for recovery of Rs. 2 lakhs and initiation of criminal proceedings was denied.

B. Radhakrishnan Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.11.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶8

W.P.[MD].No.20159 of 2015

B.Radhakrishnan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

¶13

Collectorate, Ramanathapuram.

¶14

2.The Block Development Officer, Ramanathapuram Panchayat Union, Ramnad District.

¶15

3.V.C.K.Pugazhenthi .. Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to recover the Government Fund of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), that was misused by the third respondent for laying roads in R.S.No.204/3 & 205/2A and to initiate criminal proceedings against the 3^rd respondent within a time frame.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Murugesan

¶18

For respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, Government Advocate

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

[ Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.]

¶21

The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to recover the Government Fund of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), that was misused by the third respondent for laying roads in R.S.No.204/3 & 205/2A and to initiate criminal proceedings against the 3^rd respondent.

¶22

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents. In view of the order to be passed in this petition, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ we have not issued notice to the third respondent.

¶23

¶24

3.A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition would go to show that the allegation pertains to the misappropriation of fund by the Councilor of the local body. Now, he is no more the local body member and therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot take action against the third respondent under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. If really the third respondent had committed any crime like misappropriation of public fund, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent Court. Therefore, we are unable to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (AE)

¶27

/True copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

The District Collector, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram.

¶31

+1 CC to Mr.N.MURUGESAN, Advocate, SR No. 65587

¶32

+1 CC to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR No.66041

¶33

Order made in W.P.[MD].No.20159 of 2015 03.11.2016

¶34

gcg SH/SKS-RR:17.11.2016:2P/4C

¶35

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

B. Radhakrishnan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Radhakrishnan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.M. Ibrahimsha Vs the District Collector

T.Murugan, Vs the District Collector

Suresh Vs the Inspector of Police

P. Maharajan Vs the District Collector

Gurunathan Vs the Inspector of Police

Edward Vs the Inspector of Police