The Writ Court dismissed a petition challenging two inter-parties letters regarding alleged misuse of funds. The Court held that private correspondence by respondents cannot support a writ of Mandamus and no cause of action exists until actual proceedings are initiated. The petition is misconceived.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.No. 16850 of 2006
08-09-2006
Between:-
Peddipinna Rajeshwaari and another.
Petitioners And
The District Collector, Nellore district, Nellore and two others.
Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.No. 16850 of 2006
Oral order:
The writ petition is misconceived. No cause of action in presenti exists for grant of relief. What is assailed is a letter dated 24-12-2005 addressed by the Executive Secretary, Nellore District Water and Sanitation Committee (for short ‘NDWSC’), Nellore to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Murkur Mandal, Nellore district informing the Mandal Revenue Officer that the District Collector, Nellore had issued orders for recovery of Rs. 2,90,000-00 of Government funds allegedly misused by the Village Water and Sanitation Committee (for short ‘VWSC’), Daruvulapalem. The 1st petitioner, who is the Chairman of Water and Sanitation Committee, Doravulapalem village, Muthukur mandal, Nellore district, apprehends that on the basis of the impugned letter of the Executive Secretary,
NDWSC, Nellore, the 3rd respondent would initiate proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioners assert that there has been no mis-utilization of the Government funds and that the entire amount of Rs. 12,15,000-00 released to the VWSC has been expended in execution of the work entrusted to it.
As on date no action has been taken by the 3rd respondent under the Revenue Recovery Act. A private correspondence between the 2nd and 3rd respondents, which is not marked to the petitioners, cannot form the basis for any action or issuance of a Mandamus.
The writ petition is, on the aforesaid analysis, dismissed. As and when proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act are initiated by the 3rd respondent or any other public authority, the petitioners may seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. No costs.
_________________
GODA RAGHURAM, J
Dated:08-09-2006 Pvks/*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a private correspondence between private respondents can form the basis for issuance of a writ of Mandamus.
Whether a cause of action in praesenti exists for the grant of relief in the present writ petition.
Whether the apprehension of initiation of proceedings by the respondent violates the petitioners' rights.
Peddipinna Rajeshwaari and another
The District Collector, Nellore district, Nellore and two others
GODA RAGHURAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
