Dismissed

Rajkumar v. The Chief Secretary /

Madras HC9 Jan 2023WP/393/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the President of a Village Panchayat sought a direction to refund ₹7,44,000 spent on supplying food during Cyclone Burevi, claiming it was done on the instructions of the Block Development Officer. The Court rejected the claim due to lack of written instructions and held that such expenditure cannot be demanded as a matter of right.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Rajkumar Vs The Chief Secretary / — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP.No.393 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

WP.No.393 of 2023

¶7

Rajkumar, President, Madhanakopalapuram Panchayat, No.56/1, Midle Street, A Puthur, Siruthondamadevi Post, Cuddalore District – 607 103.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Chief Secretary/Chief Minsiter Special Cell, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore 0 607 103.

¶13

The Block Development Officer, Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore District. .. Respondents

¶14

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

WP.No.393 of 2023

¶16

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.7,44,000/- spent by the petitioner based on the direction of the fourth respondent within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthik Jeganath Government Advocate

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to refund

¶20

the amount of Rs.7,44,000/- spent by the petitioner based on the direction

¶21

of the fourth respondent within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶22

It is the case of the Writ petitioner that being a President of the

¶23

Village Panchayat, during the Burevi cyclone, he has spent a sum of Rs.7,44,000/- for supplying food to the villagers. According to the petitioner, the amount has been spent only on the instructions of the fourth respondent. Therefore, he is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.7,44,000/-. It is also placed reliance on the reply sent by the fourth

¶24

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

WP.No.393 of 2023

¶26

respondent indicating that the representation of the petitioner is sent to the Government. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed for the aforesaid direction.

¶27

Mr.K.Karthik Jeganath, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. According to him, there is a statutory bar for refund of the amount which has been spent and there is no instruction from the Government. Therefore, there cannot be any direction to the Government for refund of the amount.

¶28

I have perused the entire materials. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has supplied food to the villagers during the cyclone 'burevi' and spent about Rs.7,44,000/- on the instructions of the fourth respondent. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that absolutely, there is no written instructions whatsoever in this regard. Therefore, merely on the basis of oral instructions of the fourth respondent, the Government cannot be mulched with liability to pay the amount. It is a normal practice in every village, whenever there is a flood or heavy rain, food will be offered by the President of the village or prominent person.

¶29

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

WP.No.393 of 2023

¶31

Merely adopting such a course, as a matter of right, such a direction cannot

¶32

be sought from the Government.

¶33

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

09.01.2023

vrc

The Chief Secretary/Chief Minsiter Special Cell, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶38

The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶39

The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore 0 607 103.

¶40

The Block Development Officer, Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore District.

¶41

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

WP.No.393 of 2023

¶43

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶44

vrc

¶45

WP.No.393 of 2023

¶46

09.01.2023

¶47

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

Rajkumar v. The Chief Secretary /

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar v. The Chief Secretary /

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

Wasila Banu Vs The Commissioner

Amutha Muniyan Vs The Chief Secretary

G.Sekar Vs The District Collector/

M.Yoganath Vs The Commissioner

R.Palanisamy Vs The Joint commissioner

Murugan Vs The Commissioner