Dismissed

M.Prabhakaran v. the Chief Engineer

Madras HC10 Aug 2023WP/23418/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a fresh inquiry into a complaint by the petitioner against public works department officials. The Court found that an inquiry had already been conducted and no specific allegations were made, thus no positive direction was necessary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.

M.Prabhakaran Vs the Chief Engineer — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.23418 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.08.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.23418 of 2023

M.Prabhakaran

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chief Engineer, Office of the Chief Engineer, Public Work Department-Water Resource Department Office (WRD-PWD),

¶11

Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Superintending Engineer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Public Work Department-Water Resource Department Office, Tanjavur – 614 602.

¶13

3.The Executive Engineer, Vennaru Vadinila Division Office, Public Work Department-Water Resource Department Office (WRD-PWD),

¶14

Thiruvarur – 614 404.

¶15

4.Rajendran Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Vennar River Basin Division, Thiruvarur – 614 404.

¶16

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

Page 1 of 5

W.P.No.23418 of 2023

5.G.Thiruvalluvan,

Public Information cum Technical Assistant to Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Vennar River Basin Division, Thiruvarur – 614 404. ... Respondents

¶21

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st to 3^rd respondents to conduct fresh inquiry into petitioner's complaint, dated 08.03.2023, by giving opportunity to the petitioner and direct the 1^st respondent to take appropriate action against the erring 4^th and 5^th respondents.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suriyamuthu For R1 to R3 : Mr.E.Vedabagath Singh Special Government Pleader

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This writ petition has been filed to direct the 1^st to 3^rd respondents to conduct fresh enquiry into the petitioner's complaint, dated 08.03.2023, by giving opportunity to the petitioner and direct the 1^st respondent to take appropriate action against the erring 4^th and 5^th respondents.

¶25

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, being an

¶26

activist involved in protecting the interests of the downtrodden people, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

W.P.No.23418 of 2023

¶29

preferred an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking

¶30

certain information from the respondent Department. He was threatened by unidentified people claiming themselves to be the officials of the Department. Therefore, he preferred a complaint, dated 08.03.2023, to the higher authorities. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that, without hearing the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent unilaterally closed the petitioner's complaint without taking any action against the erring officials. Hence, the writ petition.

¶31

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶32

Mr.E.Vedabagath Singh, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶33

4.On a perusal of the letter addressed by the 3^rd respondent to

¶34

the petitioner, dated 18.04.2023, it appears that the respondents have already conducted enquiry based on the complaint given by the petitioner, dated 08.03.2023, and have instructed the subordinate officials not to involve in unwanted exchange of words with any of the parties. In such view of the matter, when the petitioner has not made out any specific allegations against any of the officials of the Department, merely on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Page 3 of 5

¶36

W.P.No.23418 of 2023

¶37

basis of general allegations, there cannot be any positive directions from this Court, particularly when the matter has already been seized and

¶38

enquired into by the officials of the Department.

¶39

5.Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶40

10.08.2023

¶41

mkn

¶42

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral citation : Yes / No Speaking order / Nonspeaking order

¶43

¶44

1.The Chief Engineer, Office of the Chief Engineer, Public Work Department-Water Resource Department Office (WRD-PWD),

¶45

Chennai – 600 009.

¶46

2.The Superintending Engineer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Public Work Department-Water Resource Department Office, Tanjavur – 614 602.

¶47

3.The Executive Engineer, Vennaru Vadinila Division Office, Public Work Department-Water Resource Department Office (WRD-PWD),

¶48

Thiruvarur – 614 404.

¶49

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

¶50

Page 4 of 5

¶51

W.P.No.23418 of 2023

¶52

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. mkn

¶53

W.P.No.23418 of 2023

¶54

10.08.2023

¶55

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

¶56

Page 5 of 5

M.Prabhakaran v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Prabhakaran v. the Chief Engineer

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

R.Raghu Vs State of Tamil Nadu

C.S.I.Higher Secondary School for The Deaf Vs The State Commissioner /

A.Periyasamy Vs The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Murugesh Reddy Vs The District Collector

E.Nixon Vs The Joint Secretary to Government

G.Chitra Vs the Secretary to Government