Pushpavalli Suresh Babhu Vs the Addl. Chief Secretary to Government

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.08.2025 and initiate action as against respondents 6 and 7 in accordance with law within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶35

WP No. 49186 of 2025

¶36

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 4th respondent leading to the issuance of the Letter bearing proceedings Na.Ka. No.1726/2023/A3 dated 31.10.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct

¶37

Page2 of 7

¶38

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

¶39

WP No. 39904 of 2025

¶40

respondents 1 to 4 to initiate action based on the petitioners representation dated 18.08.2025 as against respondents 6 and 7 in accordance with law within a time fixed by this Court.

¶41

For Petitioner(s):	Mr.B.Arvind Srevatsa
For Respondent(s):	Mr.M.Sivavarthanan,
	Govt. Advocate for RR 1 to 5

¶42

COMMON ORDER

¶43

The petitioner challenges the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the fourth

¶44

respondent in Na.Ka.No.1726/2023/A3.

¶45

By the impugned order, the petitioner has been informed that the seventh respondent, who is the President of Paramankeni Panchayat, has been warned that action would be taken if any such incident is repeated in future. The sixth respondent is the husband of the seventh respondent.

¶46

The petitioner, who is the Secretary of a Residential Welfare Association, submitted a complaint dated 18.08.2025 to the District Collector, Chengalpattu District, alleging that the sixth respondent was impersonating the seventh respondent and acting as the President of the Panchayat. It was further alleged that the sixth respondent was threatening the members of the Welfare Association and soliciting gratification from them. According to the petitioner, such acts of the sixth respondent were within the knowledge of the seventh respondent. The petitioner, therefore, requested the District Collector to initiate action against respondents 6 and 7.

¶47

__________ Page3 of 7

¶48

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

¶49

WP No. 39904 of 2025

¶50

Since no action was taken on the complaint, the petitioner filed W.P.No.39904 of 2025 seeking a direction to the third respondent to consider the complaint and initiate action against respondents 6 and 7. Subsequently, the

¶51

fourth respondent passed the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 in Na.Ka.No.1726/2023/A3. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.49186 of 2025.

¶52

The grievance of the petitioner is that, having regard to the nature of the allegations made against respondents 6 and 7, stringent action ought to have been taken against them instead of merely issuing a warning to the seventh respondent.

¶53

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents submitted that the allegation of impersonation against the sixth respondent cannot be enquired into by the respondent authorities. It was further submitted that, in the absence of any allegation that the seventh respondent had acted in contravention of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 or the Rules framed thereunder, the District Collector cannot initiate action against her under Section 205 of the Act.

¶54

The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties have been considered.

¶55

The allegations of impersonation, threatening the members of the Welfare Association and soliciting gratification are primarily against the sixth respondent. In the absence of any statutory power conferred upon the District

¶56

Page4 of 7

¶57

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

¶58

WP No. 39904 of 2025

¶59

Collector to enquire into such allegations against the sixth respondent, no direction can be issued to the District Collector to take action against him. Likewise, there is no specific allegation that the seventh respondent, in her

¶60

capacity as President of the Panchayat, has contravened any provision of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 or the Rules framed thereunder so as to warrant action under Section 205 of the Act.

¶61

In the absence of any statutory obligation cast upon the respondent authorities to enquire into the allegations made by the petitioner, the impugned order does not warrant interference. The fourth respondent has nevertheless warned the seventh respondent that action would be taken if any such incident is repeated in future.

¶62

Accordingly, W.P.No.49186 of 2025 is dismissed, while preserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum seeking action against respondents 6 and 7, if permissible in law.

¶63

In view of the subsequent order dated 31.10.2025 passed on the petitioner’s complaint, nothing further survives for consideration in W.P.No.39904 of 2025. Accordingly, W.P.No.39904 of 2025 is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, are closed.

¶64

21-07-2026

¶65

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

¶66

Page5 of 7

¶67

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

¶68

WP No. 39904 of 2025

¶69

To