P.Gopinathan v. District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 03.01.2022 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.No.4798 of 2021 Mr.P.Gopinathan, S/o Palanisamy .. Petitioner Vs.

1. District Collector, District Collector's Office, Salem-636 001.

2. Block Development Officer, (Block Panchayat), Kolathur PO, Mettur Tk, Salem District-636 363.

.. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to take appropriate disciplinary proceedings on the second respondent who is the custodian for the loss of 117 Form-S public records.

For petitioner : Mr.P.Gopinathan - petitioner-in-person For respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran, Spl.G.P.

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to take appropriate disciplinary proceedings on the second respondent who is the custodian for the loss of 117 Form-S public records.

2. The petitioner claims to have worked as Block Development Officer from 26.06.2015 to 20.08.2015 and carried out field inspection in respect of the then on-going contractual works carried out by one MCM & Co. and G.Thangam contractors.

According to the petitioner, he found that the works were carried out without quality and the same was being done flouting the norms and procedures. The petitioner therefore initiated stern action against the said contractors. According to him, because of initiation of action against the erring officials and the contractors, he was suspended from service on 20.08.2015.

3. The present case of the petitioner herein is that there are about 117 Form-S relating to the controversial transactions, which have been fabricated and were also said to be missing. Therefore, the petitioner appeared to have submitted a representation to take action against the second respondent who is the custodian of the said 117 public records. Not finding any action being taken, the present Writ Petition has been filed for the relief stated supra.

4. From the above factual narrative, it could be seen that it is entirely a dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent in the discharge of their duties, which dispute cannot be brought within the realm of the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Obviously, the petitioner appears to be having an axe to grind against the second respondent and he is presently involving this Court in settling the personal scores of his as against the second respondent, which cannot be entertained by this Court.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, certain facts have been narrated, which have no bearing on the ultimate prayer sought in the Writ Petition. The petitioner claims himself to be a crusader against the corrupt practices in public services, but however, it is not open to him to involve this Court for settling any dispute arising under the so-called crusade against the corrupt officials.

6. In any event, from the entirety of the facts as narrated above in the Writ Petition, this Court does not make any legal sense to entertain the Writ Petition at all.

7. Hence, for the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

cs To

1. The District Collector, District Collector's Office, Salem-636 001.

2. The Block Development Officer, (Block Panchayat), Kolathur PO, Mettur Tk, Salem District-636 363.

W.P.No.4798 of 2021 SMI[co] NSK 25/01/2022