Disposed

Shri.M.Bhojaraj Varma v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC7 Nov 2019WP/24696/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a direction to initiate severe punishment proceedings against a Tahsildar for a bribe demand. The court disposed of the petition after noting that an enquiry was conducted, and the charges against the Third Respondent were not proved.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of; Petitioner advised to approach the competent forum if further relief is required.

Shri.M.Bhojaraj Varma Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Corruption | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.11.2019

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 24696 of 2018

¶4

Shri. M. Bhojaraj Varma

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

-vs-

¶7

State of Tamil Nadu

¶8

Represented by its Secretary

¶9

Revenue Department

¶10

Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

The District Collector

¶12

Office of the District Collectorate

¶13

Krishnagiri.

¶14

V.Pandarinathan Presently Tahsildar, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the First and Second Respondents to take appropriate action and initiate proceedings for severe punishment against the Third Respondent for the demand of bribe, by considering the representation of the Petitioner dated 30.01.2016 in accordance with law.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. N. Ramesh For Respondents: Mr. R. Venkatesh Government Advocate for R1 & R2. Mr. R. Bharathkumar for R3.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the First and Second Respondents to take appropriate action and initiate proceedings for severe punishment against the Third Respondent for the demand of bribe, by considering the representation dated 30.01.2016 made by the Petitioner.

¶20

The Second Respondent has filed Counter Affidavit dated 29.03.2019, in which it has been stated as follows:-

¶21

1/3

¶22

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

¶23

“5. It is submitted that, on receipt of complaint Petition from the Petitioner this respondent has conducted an enquiry and perused all the records. Further, a charge memo under Section 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) rules, 1973 was issued to the Third Respondent for the allegations leveled against the Third Respondent in Na.Ka. 1586/2016/A1, dated 15.12.2017 by this Second Respondent. Thereafter, the Third Respondent offered his explanation for the charges leveled against him and an enquiry was conducted in the matter. The charges leveled against the Third Respondent were not held proved. There are no evidences and records to establish the charges leveled against the Third Respondent by the Petitioner vide order dated 03.05.2018 in Na.Ka. No. 1586/2016/A1 by this Second Respondent”.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid action taken by the Respondent on the
complaint made by the Petitioner, nothing remains for further
consideration in the matter.
4. Recording the aforesaid subsequent events, the Writ
Petition stands disposed. If the Petitioner still has any
grievance to be redressed in the matter, it is open to him to
work out his remedy for necessary relief before the competent
forum in the manner recognized by law. No costs.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Secretary to
State of Tamil Nadu ,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Office of the District Collectorate,
Krishnagiri.

¶25

2/3

¶26

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

¶27

+1 cc to Mr.R.Bharath Kumar Advocate sr93436

¶28

W.P. No. 24696 of 2018

¶29

aa15/11/2019

¶30

3/3

¶31

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

Shri.M.Bhojaraj Varma v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.M.Bhojaraj Varma 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

M/s.Senthil & Co., Vs The General Manager

P.Murugan Vs The Superintendent of Police

M/s.Marine Equipment Vs The Chairman

S.Kanagaraj Vs The Superintendent of Police

S.Munusamy Vs The District Collector

R.Durairaj Vs The Regional Passport Officer