Disposed¶27

R.B.Rajarajan v. the District Collector

Madras HC30 Jun 2026WP/39135/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.39135 of 2024; Madras High Court; Hemant Chandangoudar, J.; 30.06.2026; Article 226; writ of Mandamus; District Collector Cuddalore; Revenue Divisional Officer Chidambaram; Block Development Officer Bhuvanagiri; Mela Mungiladi Panchayat; school building construction contract; representation dated 03.01.2024; proceedings dated 12.01.2023; misuse of funds; disposal with direction to consider representation; six-week timeline; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the fourth respondent, within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs. ¶27

R.B.Rajarajan Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent (District Collector, Cuddalore) should be directed to enquire into the allegations made against the fourth respondent in the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2024 and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶20

Court's answer

Recording the State Counsel's submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The above exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; there shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.No.39135 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Hemant Chandangoudar, J., decided 30.06.2026) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the District Collector, Cuddalore (R1) to investigate the construction built by A.Devaki (R4), contractor for a new school building whose works were sanctioned by the Block Development Officer, Bhuvanagiri (R3) by proceedings dated 12.01.2023, and to act on the petitioner R.B.Raja Rajan's representation dated 03.01.2024 alleging non-conformity with prescribed specifications and misuse of sanctioned funds. The Court, recording the Government Counsel's submission that the representation would be considered on its own merits, disposed of the petition with a direction to R1 to consider the representation dated 03.01.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing both the petitioner and R4, completing the exercise within six weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.39135 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 30.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

W.P.No.39135 of 2024

¶7

R.B.Raja Rajan S/o.Bala Krishnan

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

The District Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer Chidambaram Chidambaram District.

¶12

The Block Development Officer Bhuvanagiri Block Cuddalore District.

¶13

A.Devaki W/o.Agoram … Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to investigate the construction built by the 4^th respondent and take appropriate action against the 4^th respondent based upon the investigation by considering the representation dated 03.01.2024.

¶15

Page Nos.1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.39135 of 2024

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ramprabu For Respondents : Mr.P.Siddarth Government Counsel, for R1 to R3 R4 – No appearance *********

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to enquire into the allegations made against the fourth respondent in his representation dated 03.01.2024 and to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶21

The petitioner states that he was elected as the President of Mela Mungiladi Panchayat. According to him, the third respondent, by proceedings dated 12.01.2023, sanctioned the demolition of the old school building and the construction of a new school building. The fourth respondent was awarded the contract for the said work. It is the petitioner’s case that the fourth respondent failed to carry out the construction in accordance with the prescribed specifications and misused the funds sanctioned for the project. On that basis, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.01.2024 requesting the first respondent to initiate appropriate action. His grievance is that the said representation has not yet been considered.

¶22

Page Nos.2/4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.39135 of 2024

¶25

The learned State Counsel, on instructions, submitted that the

¶26

petitioner’s representation would be considered on its own merits and appropriate orders would be passed within such time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶27

Recording the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 03.01.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent.

¶28

The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

30.06.2026

¶30

Speaking / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶31

¶32

Page Nos.3/4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.39135 of 2024

¶35