E.J.Dharmaraj v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN E.J.Dharmaraj ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector/ The Inspector of Panchayat, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District.

2.The Block Developmental Officer, Coonoor, The Nilgiris District.

3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District.

4.K.Murugan, President, Yedapalli Panchayat, Coonoor, The Nilgiris District - 643 103.

... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first to third respondents to consider and act on the representation of the petitioner dated 30.04.2022 1/5

containing allegations, malpractices and financial irregularities on the part of the fourth respondent in accordance with law and following the provisions of Sections 204 and 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder within time frame to be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Gopalakrishnan For Respondents :

For R1 & R3 : Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the first and third respondents.

2. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first to third respondents to consider and act on the petitioner's representation dated 30.04.2022, detailing the allegations, malpractices and financial irregularities made by the fourth respondent in accordance with law and following the provisions of Sections 204 and 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the first and 2/5

third respondents on the other hand would submit that there is a private dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent as is evident from the petitioner's representation dated 30.04.2022 and therefore these matters need not be enquired by the official respondents. That apart, it is submitted that already certain proceedings have been initiated against the fourth respondent and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first and third respondents. I have also perused the copy of the petitioner's complaint/representation dated 30.04.2022.

5. Prima facie, it appears that there is a private dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Further, these are not the matters to be enquired by the official respondents under Sections 204 and 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

3/5

6. Therefore, I find no merits in the present writ petition. It is open for the petitioner to workout his remedy against the fourth respondent, if any, in accordance with law.

7. This Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs.

24.06.2022 Index : Yes/ No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order arb 4/5

C.SARAVANAN, J.

arb To 1.The District Collector/ The Inspector of Panchayat, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District.

2.The Block Developmental Officer, Coonoor, The Nilgiris District.

3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District.

24.06.2022 5/5