Disposed

Chandrasekaran.T v. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj

Madras HC27 Nov 2024WP(MD)/2529/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation alleging abuse of power and misappropriation of funds within three months, holding non-consideration constitutes dereliction of duty before disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2023 and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Chandrasekaran.T Vs The Director of Rural… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.2529 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.2529 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD).No.17826 of 2024

¶7

T.Chandrasekaran ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Chennai.

¶10

2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Trichy.

¶11

3.The Assistant Director of Panchayats (Audit), Trichy Division, Trichy.

¶12

4.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Trichy Division, Trichy.

¶13

5.The Block Development Officer, Thathaiyangarpet, Musiri Taluk, Trichy.

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.2529 of 2024

¶17

6.The Panchayat President, Mangalam Village Panchayat, Thathaiyangarpet Union, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District.

7.Sujatha

8.Poraikizhan

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd to 4^th respondents herein to take appropriate action as against the 6^th to 8^th respondents in light of petitioner's representations dated 05.06.2023 and 12.06.2023, consequently expedite the further proceedings in nr.K.m4/2486/2023/c.,.(C) dated 13.10.2023 on the file of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents herein.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan For R-1 to R-5 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader For R-6 to R-8 : Mr.K.Mahendran

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed for Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to take appropriate action as against the respondents 6 to 8 in the light of the petitioner's representations dated 05.06.2023 and 12.06.2023 and

¶26

Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.(MD).No.2529 of 2024

¶28

consequently expedite the further proceedings dated 13.10.2023 on the file of the respondents 3 and 4 herein.

¶29

The petitioner herein had given a representation to the official respondents on 12.06.2023 to take action against the respondents 6 to 8 for abuse of power and misappropriation of funds. Since the said representation was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶30

It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶31

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2023, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with

¶32

Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.(MD).No.2529 of 2024

¶34

law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the respondents 6 to 8 herein, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the concerned respondents to consider the same on its own merits.

¶35

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶36

(M.S.R.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 27.11.2024

¶37

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm

¶38

¶39

1.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Chennai.

¶40

2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Trichy.

¶41

Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.(MD).No.2529 of 2024

¶43

3.The Assistant Director of Panchayats (Audit), Trichy Division, Trichy.

¶44

4.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Trichy Division, Trichy.

¶45

5.The Block Development Officer, Thathaiyangarpet, Musiri Taluk, Trichy.

¶46

6.The Panchayat President, Mangalam Village Panchayat, Thathaiyangarpet Union, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District.

¶47

Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.(MD).No.2529 of 2024

¶49

M.S.RAMESH,J. and A.D.MARIA CLETE,J.

¶50

¶51

W.P.(MD).No.2529 of 2024

¶52

27.11.2024

¶53

Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Chandrasekaran.T v. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekaran.T v. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj

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

T.Packirisamy Vs the Presiding Officer

The Assistant Commissioner II (St) Vs Ramesh Exports Private Ltd.

Tamilselvi Vs The Authorized Officer

Ignasimuthu .T Vs The Thasildar

V.Palanikumar Vs The District Collector

R.Muthuvel Vs The District Collector/Monitoring Committee