Petitioner, a contractor, filed a writ seeking action against individuals under the SC/ST Act. Court noted that complaints lodged by the petitioner were already investigated and closed. Petition dismissed for suppression of facts; no order required.
Writ petition closed; no order required to be passed.
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.
WP(MD)No.900 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.900 of 2016
C.Chellam
.. Petitioner
v.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Director, Rural Development Agency and Panchayat, 5th Floor, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli.
3.The Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Collectorate Campus, Tirunelveli.
4.M.Vinayaga Subramaniyan
5.A.Asan Ibrahim .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent
1/5
WP(MD)No.900 of 2016
to take necessary action as against the respondents 4 & 5 as per Section 4
of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, Government Advocate for R.1, R.2
No appearance for R.3
Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar for R.4
Mr.R.J.Karthick for R.5
ORDER
The petitioner is a Contractor, awarded with a contract work of laying cement road, Sevalaperi Pottal Ammal Kovil Area, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. However, the petitioner has not completed the work in time. Therefore, a notice was issued by the Block Development Officer on 22.09.2014. In the meantime, the petitioner has lodged a complaint as against the Block Development Officer.
2/5
WP(MD)No.900 of 2016
2.An enquiry has been conducted and a report dated 14.11.2014 was also filed stating that the allegations made as against the Block Development Officer were found to be false. The petitioner has also made another complaint before the District Collector on 05.10.2015. The District Collector, Tirunelveli, has issued summons to the petitioner on 14.10.2015. Another complaint was also lodged by the petitioner before the District Collector, Kanyakumari, based on which, summons was issued to the petitioner on 18.11.2015. While so, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 11.01.2016 for a Mandamus directing the official respondents to take action as against the respondents 4 & 5 as per Section 4 of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3.Learned Government Advocate, on instructions, submitted that on the complaint made by the petitioner, enquiry was conducted and the complaint was closed. However, the petitioner has filed this writ petition by suppressing the enquiry conducted by the District Collectors of Kanyakumari and Tirunelveli, on the complaint made by him.
3/5
WP(MD)No.900 of 2016
Index : Yes / No 18.10.2023 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes gk
To
1.The Director, State of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development Agency and Panchayat, 5th Floor, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
4/5
WP(MD)No.900 of 2016
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
WP(MD)No.900 of 2016
18.10.2023
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for mandatory action against respondents 4 & 5 should be allowed given that complaints filed by the petitioner were already closed after enquiry.
C.Chellam
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Director, Rural Development Agency and Panchayat
District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli
Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Collectorate Campus, Tirunelveli
M.Vinayaga Subramaniyan
A.Asan Ibrahim
B.PUGALENDHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
