This petition challenged the lack of action against officials alleged to have misappropriated MGNREGS funds despite allegations presented. The court noted that a prior enquiry found the specific charges of siphoning money unproved and disposed of the writ petition without ordering further action.
The writ petition is disposed of; there is no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.8132 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.12.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.8132 of 2018
.. Petitioners
Vs.
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.8132 of 2018
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to take action against the respondents 7 to 9 for acts of corruption, impersonation and misappropriation of public money allocated for Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme on the basis of petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2017 within the time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
Page 2 of 8
W.P.No.8132 of 2018
For the Petitioner : Ms.R.Divya Preathika For Mr.R.Bharath Kumar For the Respondents : Mr.G.Baskaran Central Government Standing Counsel for Respondent-1
Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for Respondents 2 to 9
ORDER
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Ms.R.Divya Preathika, learned counsel for Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.G.Baskaran, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 9.
Page 3 of 8
W.P.No.8132 of 2018
given representation. However, no action is taken.
“7. It is submitted that the enquiry with the workers had also shown that, all of them had worked in the farm ponds under MGNREGS, and for that they were paid wages into their respective bank accounts. The records pertaining to the digging of the farm ponds for the petitioners were verified by the enquiry officer. In addition, the enquiry officer had obtained account statement from the banks where the MGNREGS workers had been maintaining their accounts to receive wages. The wages for the work done by the workers were credited to their respective bank accounts through PFMS.
8. It is humbly submitted that the present case that has come up before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, is about farmpond component under MGNREGS in Noothapur village of Veppanthattai block, with regard to two beneficiaries namely 1.Thiru.R.Chinnasamy s/o Ramasamy 2.Thiru.M.Ramasamy s/o Muthusamy, in
Page 4 of 8
W.P.No.8132 of 2018
the year 2015-16. The farmpond component consists of only wage component, which has to be paid to the workers engaged and there is no material component involved in this work. The wages for engaged workers was directly paid through Fund Transfer Order (FTO) to the bank account of the workers. In the above case, records pertaining to the farmpond execution such as administrative sanction given, wage list generated, fund transfer order, bank accounts etc., were verified by the enquiry officer and concerned persons were enquired and depositions given by them were filed.
9. I respectfully submit that on perusing all the records pertaining to this case such as affidavit of the petitioners, depositions of the second and third petitioners given before the enquiry officer, depositions given by the MGNREGS workers attended enquiry, bank statements of the accounts of the workers etc., the contention of the first petitioner as such the respondents 7 to 9 had siphoned off money without digging farm ponds “is not held proved”. All the procedure in the execution of farmponds under MGNREGS were scrupulously followed as per the existing guidelines and funds
Page 5 of 8
W.P.No.8132 of 2018
were properly utilised for the purpose for which it was sanctioned.”
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 12.12.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
To
Page 6 of 8
W.P.No.8132 of 2018
Page 7 of 8
W.P.No.8132 of 2018
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
(kpl)
W.P.No.8132 of 2018
12.12.2023
_________ Page 8 of 8_
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner must be granted a writ of Mandamus directing action against respondents for alleged corruption and misappropriation of public money under MGNREGS when an earlier enquiry held th
P. Annadurai
R. Chinnasamy
M. Ramasamy
Union of India
The State of Tamil Nadu
The Director of Rural Development and Panchayatraj
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
