Allowed

K.Parimala v. the District Collector

Madras HC29 Jul 2024WP/9502/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, Vice President of a Village Panchayat, alleged misappropriation of Panchayat funds via misuse of her OTP number and award of all 13 development schemes to a firm run by the Panchayat President. The Court found officials had swindled public funds, referred the matter to Vigilance and Anti Corruption for enquiry from 2019, and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department directed to enquire into the scam from 2019 and act under Section 38(3)(c) TN Panchayats Act; report by 30.10.2024.

K.Parimala Vs the District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.07.2024 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶4

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶5

K. Parimala ...Petitioner

¶6

¶7

The District Collector, Dharmapuri

¶8

The Assistant Director Rural Development ( Panchayat) Dharmapuri District Collector's Office, Dharmapuri.

¶9

The Block Development Officer, ( Village Panchayat) Kadathur Revenue Block, Kadathur Village Panchayat Office, Kadathur, Dharmapuri District.

¶10

M.Raja

¶11

Mrs. Renuka ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first Respondent to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry by himself based on petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2024 and pass orders.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayakumar For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.P. Muthukumar,AAG Asst by Mr.C. Meera Arumugam

¶14

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

¶15

1/12

¶16

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶17

For Respondent-3 : Mr.P.Muthu Kumar Asst by Mr.R. Kumaravel, AGP For Respondent-4 :Mr.N.Sakthivel

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to conduct a fair and impartial enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2024.

¶20

2.According to the petitioner, she has been elected as Vice President of Ramiyanahalli Village Panchayat of Dharmapuri District through a local body election conducted in the year 2020. The 4 th respondent has been elected as the President of the said Panchayat.

¶21

3.For the essential expenses of the Village Panchayat, like electricity bills, water charges, salaries for sanitary workers and tank operators, and street light maintenance, the money will be derived from the Government through a OTP number which will be sent to the petitioner's mobile number as per the procedure. To ensure transparency

¶22

2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶24

in spending the money for the Village Panchayat to release the funds OTP

¶25

will be sent to President and Vice-President mobile numbers and only upon submitting the same, the funds will be released to the Panchayat.

¶26

4.According to the petitioner, the Government has allocated funds during 14 th and 15 th Finance Commission for the development of Village Panchayat for the years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 where 13 development schemes were identified under “Anaithu Girama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam (AGAMT-II)” and closed tender was floated in Na.Ka.No.1559/2022/E5 dated 26.10.2022 by the third respondent and the tender was opened on 14.11.2022. All the 13 schemes were allotted to one single contractor, namely “Sri Garuda Construction” of Ramiyanahalli Village, a proprietorship firm run by Raja, S/o.Marappa Gounder, who is the President of the said Village

¶27

Panchayat and an order was passed by confirming the contract of Sri Garuda Contractor, vide the proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1559/2022/E5 dated .11.2023, on 15.11.2022 for a value of Rs.50,84,027/-.

¶28

3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶30

5.According to the petitioner, for the release of funds, the petitioner's mobile number has not been submitted; instead, some other mobile number was submitted and OTP received to that number and amounts have been released from the Government. The mode of releasing the funds was done in gross violation, defeating transparency in handling the Panchayat funds. No Panchayat meeting was held except on “Grama Shaba” days to discuss the details regarding the schemes for spending money.

¶31

6.The petitioner sent a detailed representation dated 06.03.2024 to the first respondent, who has been forwarded the same to the second respondent. The second respondent has initiated an inquiry on 23.03.2024 and summoned 4 persons to appear for an inquiry on 28.03.2024. The second respondent had summoned the President, VicePresident, Secretary and Block Development Officer. According to them, the scam was committed by the fourth respondent with other officials in a very clandestine and the officials, who are involved are the fourth respondent, who safeguarded and concealed the evidence and other

¶32

4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶34

material documents. As the fourth respondent is highly influential with

¶35

political power, he may win over the inquiry officer. Hence, the petitioner submitted that the inquiry has to be conducted by the first respondent, then only the inquiry will be held in a fair and impartial manner.

¶36

7.It is seen that the third respondent / Block Development Officer has allotted the amount through one Sri Garuda Contractor for 13 schemes for a sum of Rs.50,84,027/-. According to the petitioner, this person is none other than the President of the said Panchayat and the entire contract has been given without any competition. It is also further seen that the misappropriation of money has been found as her OTP has been misused, and instead of her mobile number, some other mobile number has been used without her permission. The OTP has been received, and the amount has been disbursed, and all these things raise suspicion regarding the contract of the authorities.

¶37

8.Hence, this Court vide order dated 15.04.2024 directed the first

¶38

respondent / District Collector to take immediate action against the said

¶39

5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶41

authorities, namely the persons who are the Block Development Officer and other Officers, who were working along with the said President and Vice President, for utilising the amount which has been drawn from the Government, if necessary, appropriate criminal proceedings will be initiated against them; and that they misused their power and awarded contracts to themselves, which is in violation of the Act and file a report before this Court and directed the Registry to post the matter on 12.07.2024 for filing compliance report.

¶42

9. As per the orders of the Court passed on 12.07.2024 Mrs.N.Meena, Block Development Officer, Kadathur, Dharmapuri, Mr.V.Dharmarasan, Assistant, Mrs.M. Mani vasakam, Assistant Director (Panchayat) Dharmapuri and Mr.V.Ravi, Superintendent(DRDA), Dharmapuri appeared before this Court. However, they have not produced relevant records. Hence, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the third Respondent/ The Block Development Officer, ( Village Panchayat) should collect the entire records from the concerned authorities from the date of nomination form

¶43

6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶45

filed during the election till date and produce before this Court on 29.07.2024.

¶46

10.On 29.07.2024 even though all the officials concerned appeared before this Court they were not able to explain the facts of the case and they are not able to give proper reply to the queries raised by this Court. Every officials blame one or other and giving evasive reply to the questions raised by this Court. It seems that no one is responsible for the illegal act. Hence, this Court is not satisfied with the reply given by them. Further more the records produced by them is not satisfactory.

¶47

11.This Court has perused the entire records produced by the officials and also gone through the explanations given by the officials concerned, wherein it is seen that the Government Officials have entered into a criminal conspiracy among each other and acted upon the same and swindled the Government funds. It is pertinent to note that the third respondent/ M.Raja in the reply letter dated 03.07.2024 addressed to the

¶48

first respondent/District collector has stated that he has produced all the

¶49

7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶51

entire records to participate in the election and the concerned Election

¶52

Officer has also examined all the documents carefully and permitted him to contest in the election and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

¶53

njhjypy ; ; njhjy ; ; Mizajjpy ; ; Fwpggpl ; ; l midjJ Mtz' ; fSk ; ; Kiwahf ,idjJ ; njhjypy ; ; nghloapl kD rkh ; gpj ; ; njd ; nkwgo ;

¶54

njhjy ; ; eljJk ; ; mYtyh ; vd ; Dila midjJ ; Mtz'fisa[k ; ; Kiwahf ghprpyid bra ; J jFjp vd ; W mwptpjj gpd ; g[ ehd ; ; njhjypy ; ; nghloapl ; ; L btw ; wp bgw ; Ws ; nsd ; vdgij ; bjhptpjJf ; ; bfhsfpnwd ; ” .

¶55

12. It is pertinent to note that even after receiving such a reply

¶56

and a direction issued by this Court to take action against the said

¶57

contractor, the first respondent has not taken action.

¶58

8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶60

13. In view of the above, it is made clear that the Government officials who are responsible for the Government funds have entered into a scam and swindled the public funds. Hence, this is a fit case which may be referred for Vigilance and anti Corruption to conduct an enquiry. Accordingly, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department are directed to conduct an enquiry from the year 2019 i.e from the date of nomination form filed during the election and produce the report before this Court on 30.10.2024 .

¶61

14. After completing the investigation, the officials of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department are directed to proceed the case against the concerned authorities as per Section 38 (3) ( c ) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 ( Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1994) and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶62

Section 38. Disqualification of members:- A member convicted of such an offence as described under sub-section (1) of Section 37 shall be disqualified, where the convicted member is sentenced to-

¶63

9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶65

Section 38 (3) ( c ):-

¶66

3. Subject to the provision of Section 41 , a member shall cease to hold office as such if he-

¶67

(c) acquires any interest in any subsisting contract made with or any work being done for, any panchayat except as a share holder(other than a director in a company or except as permitted by rules made under this Act.

¶68

With the above directions, this writ petition stands allowed.

¶69

No order as to costs.

¶70

Post the matter on 30.10.2024 under the caption, “for

¶71

reporting compliance”.

¶72

29.07.2024

¶73

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order smn

¶74

10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶76

¶77

The District Collector, Dharmapuri

¶78

The Assistant Director Rural Development ( Panchayat) Dharmapuri District Collector's Office, Dharmapuri.

¶79

The Block Development Officer, ( Village Panchayat) Kadathur Revenue Block, Kadathur Village Panchayat Office, Kadathur, Dharmapuri District.

¶80

11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶81

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶82

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN ,J.

¶83

smn

¶84

W.P.No.9502 of 2024

¶85

29.07.2024

¶86

12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Parimala v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Parimala v. the District Collector

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

S.J.Pappaiyan Vs the Member Secretary

S.Ashraf Bee Vs Tamilnadu Wakf Board

P.Govindharajan Vs the Regional Transport Officer

C.Ravi Vs The District Collector

V.Meenal Vs the Commissioner

Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association Vs Greater Chennai Corporation