Annamalai K v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.04.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD Writ Petition No.12787 of 2025 K.Annamalai ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Kallakurichi District.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayat), Kallakurichi.
3.The Assistant Director (Audit), Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi.
4.G.Murugan 5.S.Anandhan 6.S.Murugaan 7.Selvabothagar ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent Page No.1 of 6
herein to take action against the respondents 4 to 7 purusant to the petitioner's representation dated 01.03.2025.
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Kingston Jerold For Respondents 1 to 3 :
Mr.M.Rajendiran, Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this petition to direct the the first respondent herein to take action against the respondents 4 to 7 purusant to the petitioner's representation dated 01.03.2025.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was elected as the Vice President of Sengurichi Village Panchayat in 2021, was the authorized signatory for withdrawing panchayat funds. However, the panchayat clerk misused the petitioner's OTP to make unauthorized withdrawals. Upon discovering the fraud, the petitioner submitted a representation on 08.03.2024 to the concerned authorities. Since no action was taken, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 6967 of 2024, and pursuant to this Court's direction for a physical enquiry, the panchayat's accounts saw an increase of Rs.23 lakh. Subsequently, with malafide intention, the Thasildhar issued a notice dated Page No.2 of 6
24.08.2024 bringing a no-confidence motion, which was set aside in W.P. No. 27125 of 2024. Thereafter, the petitioner's cheque-signing authority was removed by an order dated 27.09.2024, which was also quashed in W.P. No. 34372 of 2024 on 06.02.2025. During this period, the petitioner discovered further misappropriation of funds by respondents 4 to 6 and lodged a complaint on 02.03.2025, leading to the present writ petition.
3. Though many grounds have been raised in this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice if this Court issues direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.03.2025 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has no objection for the said order being passed by this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
Page No.3 of 6
6. Considering the limited relief sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court without going into the merits of the case directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.03.2025, after giving due notice to the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 to 7, affording an opportunity of personal hearing and considering the documents filed by both the parties on merits, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions. No costs.
09.04.2025 vm Index :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No :
Yes/No To:
1.The District Collector, Kallakurichi District.
Page No.4 of 6
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayat), Kallakurichi.
3.The Assistant Director (Audit), Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi.
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
vm Page No.5 of 6
09.04.2025 Page No.6 of 6