Disposed

R.Shamiyula v. Regional Passport office

Madras HC16 Sept 2022WP/6073/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandate for vigilance officials to conduct an enquiry following an enquiry report confirming misappropriation of funds by village council officials, which remained unacted upon.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent, the District Collector, to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation of 26.7.2022 within four weeks.

R.Shamiyula Vs Regional Passport office — Corruption | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.26297 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 29.09.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

W.P.No.26297 of 2022

R.Rajendiran

.. Petitioner

1.The Director, Vigilance Anti-Corruption, No.283, M.K.N.Road, Alandur, Chennai.

¶13

2.The District Collector, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.

¶15

4.M.Chozharajan

¶16

5.A.Senthilkumar

¶17

6.A.Kanagaraj

¶18

Page 1 of 7

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.26297 of 2022

7.B.Sivaprakasam

8.Sundararajan

.. Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct a detailed enquiry on the representation dated 26.7.2022 made by the petitioner against the respondents 4 to 8 in accordance with law and file a report.

¶25

For the Petitioner : Mr.D.Sampathkumar

¶26

For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶29

Mr.R.Rajendiran, son of Rangasamy, a resident of Thaneer

¶30

Pandhal, Aanaikaran Chathiram Post, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District, has filed the writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to conduct a detailed

¶31

Page 2 of 7

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.26297 of 2022

¶34

enquiry on the representation dated 26.7.2022 made by the petitioner against respondents 4 to 8 in accordance with law and file a report.

¶35

It is the alleged by the petitioner that there is gross maladministration and irregularity on the part of respondents 4 to 8 using their position, thereby misappropriating Panchayat funds. According to the petitioner, 6^th respondent – A.Kanakaraj is the President of Aanaikara Chathiram Panchayat, Kollidam Panchayat Union; 5^th respondent – A.Senthilkumar is the Secretary; and 7^th respondent – Sivaprakasam is the Vice President of the said Aanaikaran Chathiram Panchayat. The 5^th respondent was suspended temporarily due to violation of Panchayat Rules and during his suspension, respondents 4 to 8 colluding with each other misappropriated the public funds and had also involved in various irregularities.

¶36

It is stated that the petitioner has submitted a representation to respondents 1 to 3 to take action against

¶37

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.No.26297 of 2022

¶40

respondents 4 to 8 for the mal-administration and misappropriation and based on the said representation, Thiru.T.Prathishkumar, Assistant Engineer, Kollidam Panchayat Union was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report to the Block Development Officer, Kollidam Panchayat stating that respondents 4 to 8 misappropriated the Panchayat Union funds and had also withdrawn amounts using their capacity. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 26.7.2022 to respondents 1 to 3 for taking further action. Though respondents 1 to 3 received the said representation, no action has been taken on it till date. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct a detailed enquiry on the representation dated 26.7.2022 made against the respondents 4 to 8 and file a report.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶42

Page 4 of 7

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.26297 of 2022

¶45

As could be seen from the records, the petitioner has

¶46

submitted a representation dated 26.7.2022 on the basis of the enquiry report dated 25.3.2022 submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the Block Development Officer, Killiam Panchayat Union. Since no action has been taken on the representation of the petitioner till date, he has approached this Court for direction. Admittedly, the receipt of the representation dated 26.7.2022 by respondents 1 to 3 has not been disputed. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the second respondent – District Collector to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.7.2022.

¶47

Without going into the merits of the claim made by the

¶48

petitioner, we hereby direct the second respondent – District Collector, Mayiladuthurai to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.7.2022 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing all concerned.

¶49

Page 5 of 7

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.No.26297 of 2022

¶52

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶53

There will be no order as to costs.

¶54

(T.R., ACJ.) (D.K.K., J.)

¶55

29.09.2022 Index : Yes/No bbr

¶56

To:

¶57

1.The Director, Vigilance Anti-Corruption, No.283, M.K.N.Road, Alandur, Chennai.

¶58

2.The District Collector, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.

¶59

3.The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.

¶60

Page 6 of 7

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

W.P.No.26297 of 2022

¶63

T.RAJA, ACJ AND D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

bbr

W.P.No.26297 of 2022

29.09.2022

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Shamiyula v. Regional Passport office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Shamiyula v. Regional Passport office

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

V.Ambigapathi Vs The Selection Committee for

Vasanatha Surana Vs Union of India

R.Selva Krishnan Vs Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Rajat Trading Company Vs Rajesh Lakhoni I.A.S.

J.Vediapppan Vs Mathura Prasad

Dr.S.M.Mohamed Rebayudeen Vs The State of TamilNadu