Disposed

S.Neela v. the Director

Madras HC22 Mar 2024WP/7556/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the inaction of authorities upon a representation by the petitioner alleging fund misappropriation by the Fifth and Sixth respondents. The Court directed the First to Fourth respondents to examine the complaint, cure any document deficiencies within 10 days, and conduct a full inquiry with a personal hearing before passing a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to examine the representation dated 15.07.2021, cure deficiencies within 10 days, conduct an inquiry with a personal hearing, pass a reasoned order, and file a compliance report by 30.06.202

S.Neela Vs the Director — Corruption | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No. 7556 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. No. 7556 of 2024

S.Neela

… Petitioner

-vs-

The Director, Directorate of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet,

¶11

Chennai - 600 015.

¶12

The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur - 602 001.

¶13

The Assistant Director (Panchayats), Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur - 602 001.

¶14

The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Gummidipoondi Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur - 601 201.

¶15

C.Ravi

¶16

S.Venkatesalu

¶17

Samuel ... Respondents

¶18

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the First to Fourth

¶19

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

¶20

1/6

¶21

W.P. No. 7556 of 2024

¶22

Respondents to conduct necessary enquiry proceedings against the Fifth and Sixth Respondents based on the Petitioner's representation dated 15.07.2021, within a time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr. V.Ramanareddy For Respondents : Mr. V.Ravi, Special Government Pleader (for R1 to R3)

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard Mr. V.Ramanareddy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. V.Ravi, Learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the First to Third Respondents, and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶26

Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the Writ Petition, which would not cause any prejudice to the Fifth to Seventh Respondents, notice to them is dispensed with.

¶27

The grievance ventilated by the Petitioner is that she had made a representation dated 15.07.2021 to the First Respondent to conduct necessary enquiry against the Fifth and Sixth Respondents for misappropriation of funds

¶28

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

¶29

2/6

¶30

W.P. No. 7556 of 2024

¶31

of Guruvaraja Kandigai Village Panchayat, but as it did not evoke any response, it has necessitated the filing of this Writ Petition.

¶32

Having regard to the limited nature of relief sought, this Court without expressing any view on the merits of the controversy involved, passes the following order:-

¶33

(i) the concerned authority shall immediately examine the representation dated 15.07.2021 made by the Petitioner including ascertaining as to whether the Petitioner would be entitled for the relief claimed;

¶34

(ii) if it is found that any other details or supporting documents is necessary, the deficiencies in that regard shall be informed in writing to the Petitioner requiring the same to be furnished within a time frame of not less than 10 working days for the same;

¶35

(iii) in the event of not being satisfied with the requirements even thereafter, an enquiry shall be conducted affording full opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and all other persons concerned to explain their position in that regard;

¶36

(iv) a reasoned order shall be passed dealing with each of the contentions raised on merits and in accordance with law and the decision taken communicated under written acknowledgment;

¶37

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

¶38

3/6

¶39

W.P. No. 7556 of 2024

¶40

(v) depending upon its outcome, it shall be incumbent upon the concerned

¶41

authorities to proceed further in the matter; and

¶42

(vi) the report of such compliance shall be filed by 30.06.2024 before the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court.

¶43

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. No

¶44

costs.

¶45

22.03.2024

¶46

Index: Yes/No NCC: Yes/No

¶47

Note: Issue order copy by 01.04.2024.

¶48

vjt

¶49

¶50

The Director, Directorate of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet,

¶51

Chennai - 600 015.

¶52

The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur - 602 001.

¶53

The Assistant Director (Panchayats), Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur - 602 001.

¶54

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

¶55

4/6

¶56

W.P. No. 7556 of 2024

¶57

The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Gummidipoondi Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur - 601 201.

¶58

Copy to

¶59

The Registrar (Judicial), Madras High Court, Chennai - 600 104.

¶60

C.Ravi, President, Guruvaraja Kandigai Village, Sirupuzhalpettai (Post), Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur - 601 201.

¶61

S.Venkatesalu, Vice President, Guruvaraja Kandigai Village, Sirupuzhalpettai (Post), Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur - 601 201.

¶62

Samuel, Panchayat Secretary, Keezhmuthalambedu Panchayat, Sirupuzhalpettai (Post), Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur - 601 201.

¶63

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

¶64

5/6

¶65

W.P. No. 7556 of 2024

¶66

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶67

vjt

¶68

W.P. No. 7556 of 2024

¶69

22.03.2024

¶70

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

¶71

6/6

S.Neela v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Neela v. the Director

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

P.Murugesan Vs the District Collector

Rukmani Vs the District Collector

D.Dhandapani Vs the Commissioner

Lakshmanan Vs the Commissioner

A.Annamalai Vs the Commissioner

Govindarasan Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Credit Societies