Madras High CourtWP/13205/2023disposed of

N.Sridhar v. The Director Of Panchayat

2023-06-01Honourable Dr Justice Anita Sumanth4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 01.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH N.Sridhar ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Director of Panchayat, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The District Collector, O/o The District Collector, Krishnagiri - 635 115.

3. The Assistant Director of Panchayat, O/o. The District Collector, Krishnagiri - 635 115.

4. The Assistant Director of Panchayat, O/o. The Block Development Officer, Mathur, Krishnagiri District - 635 203.

5. Mr.Vellingiri ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to take

appropriate action against the 5th respondent on the basis of petitioner's representation dated 09.11.2022.

For Petitioner : Ms.K.Vijayalakshmi For Respondents : Mr..Sajeev Kumar Special Government Pleader - R1 to R3 Mr.T.M.Rajangam Government Advocate - R4

O R D E R

Mr.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice for R1 to R3 and Mr.T.M.Rajangam, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R4. Both are armed with instructions to enable a final disposal of this matter even at the stage of admission. In light of the order that is proposed to be passed, no notice is thought necessary to R5.

2. The petitioner, who is a resident of Kullakkanappalli Village, Samalpatti Post, Uthagarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, seeks a mandamus directing District Collector/R2 to take action against R5 who is stated to be the husband of the President of the Village Panchayat, on the basis of his representation dated 09.11.2022.

3. According to him, R5 has been acting in a high handed fashion merely by virtue of his relationship with the Village Panchayat President. There is no basis for the aforesaid allegations, as according to the learned Special

Government Pleader, the petitioner is not a ward member and hence has no locus to have filed this writ petition. Incidentally, learned Special Government Pleader also points out that there are no complaints that have been filed even by a ward member.

4. Be that as it may, seeing as a representation has been filed by the petitioner, it would be in the fitness of things, for the official respondents to consider the same and pass orders after hearing the petitioner, R5 as well as any other persons who are necessary for the proper disposal of the matter.

5. Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed directing the District Collector/R2 before whom representation dated 09.11.2022 is, admittedly, pending, to hear the parties as aforesaid and dispose the same within a period of six (6) weeks from today. No costs.

01.06.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking/non-speaking Order sl

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

sl To

1. The Director of Panchayat, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The District Collector, O/o The District Collector, Krishnagiri - 635 115.

3. The Assistant Director of Panchayat, O/o. The District Collector, Krishnagiri - 635 115.

4. The Assistant Director of Panchayat, O/o. The Block Development Officer, Mathur, Krishnagiri District - 635 203.

01.06.2023