Disposed

S.Gunasekaran v. the District Collector

Madras HC7 Sept 2023WP/26125/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order held that the Court cannot issue a positive direction to take action without an enquiry. It directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2022 and pass final orders after issuing notice to the Panchayat President within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2022 and pass final orders after issuing notice to the Panchayat President within 8 weeks.

S.Gunasekaran Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.26125 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P No.26125 of 2023 and

¶7

WMP.No.25518 of 2023

S.Gunasekaran.

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶12

2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Collector Campus, Salem – 01.

¶13

3.The Block Development Officer, Attur Panchayat Union, Attur, Salem District.

¶14

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Vigilance of Anti-Corruption, Salem District, Salem.

¶15

5.Kalaiselvi, President, Paithur Panchayat, Attur Taluk, Salem District.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P.No.26125 of 2023

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

¶21

issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the Panchayat President namely S.Kalaiselvi, Paithur Panchayat, Attur Taluk Union, Salem District, by invoking the provisions under the Tamilnadu Panchayat Act for committing misappropriation, falsification of accounts and various irregularities as shown in the internal audit report in Na.Ka.No.959/A1/2022 dated 05.09.2022 and based on the representation dated 23.12.2022.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.M.G.Ramachandiran for Ms.S.Vinodha For Respondents : Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan, for R1 & R3

¶23

Government Advocate

¶24

Mr.J.Subbaiah for R4 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to

¶27

take action against the President of Paithur Panchayat, Attur Taluk Union,

¶28

Salem District, based on the representation submitted by him on 23.12.2022.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶30

2/6

¶31

W.P.No.26125 of 2023

¶32

2. According to the petitioner, he is a resident of Paithur

¶33

Panchayat and he submitted a representation to the first respondent making certain allegations against the President of the Panchayat. The allegations made by the petitioner was based on Audit Report submitted by the second respondent on 05.09.2022.

¶34

3. Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan, learned Government Advocate takes

¶35

notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.J.Subbaiah, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) takes notice for the fourth respondent.

¶36

4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, even though he submitted a representation to the Inspector of Panchayat namely, first respondent on 23.12.2022 making certain allegations of financial irregularities against the President of the Panchayat based on the Audit Report, till date, the same has not been considered by the first respondent.

¶37

5. Though the petitioner sought for a positive direction to take

¶38

action against the President based on his representation, this Court is not

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶40

W.P.No.26125 of 2023

¶41

inclined to issue a positive direction without any enquiry. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.12.2022 and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the fifth respondent within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶42

6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶43

07.09.2023

¶44

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No dna

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

4/6

W.P.No.26125 of 2023

1.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶50

2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Collector Campus, Salem – 01.

¶51

3.The Block Development Officer, Attur Panchayat Union, Attur, Salem District.

¶52

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Vigilance of Anti-Corruption, Salem District, Salem.

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶54

W.P.No.26125 of 2023

¶55

S.SOUNTHAR, J. dna

¶56

W.P No.26125 of 2023 and WMP.No.25518 of 2023

¶57

07.09.2023

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

¶59

W.P.No.26125 of 2023

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/6

S.Gunasekaran v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Gunasekaran 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

R.Vairavan Vs The Commissioner

A.Balakrsihnan and another Vs G.Kannan

R.Deepa Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

C.James Vs The Commissioner

Basuvaraj Vs the District Collector

M/S.Tamilnadu Housing Board Vs the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority