Dismissed

S.V.N. Sethuraman v. the Inspector of Panchayat Cum

Madras HC15 Mar 2017WP(MD)/3059/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ petition demanding action against the former President of a Panchayat for alleged misappropriation. The Court held that it cannot exercise Article 226 powers to direct action initiation for such grievances; the petitioner must approach the appropriate authority, especially as the respondent was no longer the Panchayat President.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was deemed devoid of merits and not entertained.

S.V.N. Sethuraman Vs the Inspector of Panchayat Cum — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.03.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.3059 of 2014

¶7

S.V.N.Sethuraman : Petitioner

¶8

1.The Inspector of Panchayat cum The District Collector, Virudhunagar,Virudhunagar District.

¶9

2.Block Development Officer, BDO,

¶10

Rural Development and Local Administration Dept. Virudhunagar,Virudhunagar District.

¶11

3.Ramanathan,

¶12

The President, Pulvakarai Panchayat, Narikudi,Virudhunagar District. : Respondent

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the complaint given by the petitioner dated 08.02.2014 and consequently direct the first respondent to direct the 2^nd respondent to take appropriate action.

¶14

For Petitioner : M/S J. Vijayaraja For Respondent : Mr. A. Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader for RR1 and 2

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

According to the petitioner, the Predsident of Pulvakarai Panchayat, Narikudi, Virudhunagar District has committed certain act of misconduct by misappropriation of public money.

¶17

2.During the course of argument, it was pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the third respondent is no more President of the Panchayat, since the period was already https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ over in 2016 itself. Even otherwise, the prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court by exercising the power

¶18

¶19

under Article 226 of the constitution of India. In case, the petitioner has any grievance against the third respondent, it is always open to him to file a complaint before the appropriate authority and pursue the same. He cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of directing the first respondent to initiate action in pursuance of the complaint preferred by the petitioner. It is also to be noted that the third respondent is no more the President of the Panchayat.

¶20

3.In view of this, I do not think that this writ petition is to be entertained. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(C.S.II)

¶23

/True copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Inspector of Panchayat cum

¶27

The District Collector,

¶28

Virudhunagar,Virudhunagar District.

¶29

2.Block Development Officer, BDO,

¶30

Rural Development and Local Administration Dept. Virudhunagar,Virudhunagar District.

¶31

+1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.15112 +1cc to M/S.J.VIJAYARAJA, Advocate SR.No.14868

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.3059 of 2014

¶33

15.03.2017

¶34

JM/SKN RSK/28.03.2017/2P/5C

¶35

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

S.V.N. Sethuraman v. the Inspector of Panchayat Cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.V.N. Sethuraman v. the Inspector of Panchayat 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

M. Ganesan Vs the Commissioner

Sheik Mohammed, Vs the Superintendent of

Habeeb Vs the Disrtict Collector

S.M.Sivagami Achi Vs the District Collector

G.Sevugapandi, Vs the Commissioner

K.Gopala Rathinam Vs the District Collector