Dismissed

Muthupandi v. The Director

Madras HC26 Apr 2023WP(MD)/9966/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This public interest writ petition under Art. 226 against Respondents 1-3 alleged misappropriation of MGNREGS funds by Respondents 4-7. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that no public interest existed as the petitioner had not worked under the scheme nor obtained letters from affected persons, suggesting the petition was for publicity.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded.

Muthupandi Vs The Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.9966 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.04.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶7

W.P.(MD) No.9966 of 2023

Muthupandi

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Director,

Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, State of Tamil Nadu

¶13

Chennai 15

¶14

2.The District Collector,

¶15

Office of the District Collector

¶16

Madurai.

¶17

3.The District Programme Coordinator

¶18

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Madurai District.

¶19

4.Latha

¶20

5.Manimegalai

¶21

6.P.Nalaiyini

¶22

____________ Page 1 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.9966 of 2023

¶25

7.K.Shanthi

¶26

... Respondents

¶27

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondent No.4 to 7 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 29.03.2023 in accordance with law.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader for R1 to R4

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶31

Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned counsel, takes notice for the respondents 1 to

¶32

¶33

Present writ petition has been filed in public interest to direct the

¶34

respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondent No.4 to 7 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 29.03.2023 in accordance with law.

¶35

Page 2 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.9966 of 2023

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, having completed B.E., has been serving as a Melur Branch Secretary in VCK Political Party. Having participated in protest for welfare of the village people, he was informed by his villagers that the Government of India has brought in the flagship programme called Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') for the purpose of enhancing livelihood security in rural areas by providing atleast 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. When there are 600 people in his village having job card for the scheme, atleast one person got work under the scheme for minimum 50 days in an academic year. Therefore, during the year 2022-23, when the works were allotted to selective members, who are relatives and friends of the work supervisor, namely the 4^th and 5^th respondents and one Ramesh, the work relating to raising horticulture nursery in Pulipatti was started. A sum of Rs.85,560/- was also sanctioned to unskilled workers. The said amount was credited to only 17 unskilled workers, who are the relatives of the 4^th respondent. When the respondents 4 to 7 have deposited

¶39

____________ Page 3 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.9966 of 2023

¶42

Rs.1380/- towards weekly salary to some workers, who did not participate in the scheme work, the respondents 4 and 5 created documents as if they worked in the said programme and consequently they received a sum of Rs.1,000/- from each of the person per week. At this stage, when we asked for proof of misappropriation of the said amount, we are unable to get any response.

¶43

It is seen that the petitioner has not even worked as one of the persons under the said scheme. Further, he has not even obtained any letter from any of the affected persons. Therefore, finding no public interest involved, we find that the writ petition is filed for getting publicity. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶44

[T.R., A.C.J.] [R.S.M, J.] 26.04.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶45

¶46

Page 4 of 6

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD) No.9966 of 2023

¶49

¶50

1.The Director,

¶51

Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, State of Tamil Nadu Chennai 15

¶52

2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector Madurai.

¶53

3.The District Programme Coordinator Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Madurai District.

¶54

Page 5 of 6

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD) No.9966 of 2023

¶57

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶58

¶59

W.P.(MD)No.9966 of 2023

¶60

26.04.2023

¶61

____________ Page 6 of 6

¶62

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

Muthupandi v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthupandi v. The Director

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

Gnanaselva Pappa Vs the Commissioner

Balamurugan Vs S.Aneesh Sekhar

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs S. Sujatha

The Principal Secretary Vs Victoria Joseph

The Project Director Vs B.Thavamani

The District Educational Officer, Vs S. Albert