K.Vijay v. The State Rep.By The Secretary,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.02.2021 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.No.13935 of 2020 K.Vijay ...
Petitioner Vs.
1. The State rep. by The Secretary Tamil Nadu Panchayat and Rural Development Head Quarters, St. George Fort Chennai 600 009.
2. The Collector Office of Collectorate Tiruvallur District.
3. The Director Municipality Development and Rural Development Panagal Maligai, Saidapet Chennai.
4. The Planning Director District Rural Development Tiruvallur Tiruvallur District.
5. The Commissioner Gummudipoondi Union Gummudipoondi Tiruvallur District.
6. S.Birla ... Respondents Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 to consider and take appropriate legal action based on petitioner's representation dated 09.01.2020 in accordance with law, within a stipulated time.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sugendran For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan State Govt. Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 Mr.MA.Gowthaman for respondent-5
ORDER
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The allegation in the so-called public interest litigation relates to the perceived defalcation of funds pertaining to the "100 days' work" in a particular area. The writ petitioner says that the sixth respondent is closely associated with the local authorities and public funds have been misappropriated through the sixth respondent.
2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fifth respondent denying that there has been any defalcation. The fifth respondent, a public official, has taken responsibility in filing an affidavit upon verifying the accounts. It is submitted that a copy of such counteraffidavit has been forwarded to advocate for the petitioner.
3. Though the petitioner seeks time on the ground that counter-affidavit has not been received, nothing much would turn on such aspect of the matter. It can be scarcely expected of the Court, in exercise of the authority under Article 226 of the Constitution, to go into the accounts or investigate into the same. The matter has been looked into by a public official and an affidavit filed before this Court.
4. In the event the writ petitioner has anything specific against the sixth respondent, notwithstanding the clean chit given by the fifth respondent, the writ petitioner will be permitted to point out the perceived anomalies to the Collector, who is the second respondent herein, whereupon the Collector should cause the accounts to be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the veracity of the petitioner's allegations. In the event specific allegations are reached to the Collector within a period of six weeks from date, the Collector will consider the same and respond to the petitioner by a speaking order within eight weeks of the receipt of alleged anomalies.
5. It is not possible for the Court, with its
limitations, to look into the accounts whenever a case of misappropriation is brought, unless it involves a larger public interest covering a greater area or affecting a cross-section of citizens.
W.P.No.13935 of 2020 is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (IX) /TRUE COPY/ Sub-Assistant Registrar kpl To
1. The Secretary Tamil Nadu Panchayat and Rural Development Head Quarters, St. George Fort Chennai 600 009.
2. The Collector Office of Collectorate Tiruvallur District.
3. The Director Municipality Development and Rural Development Panagal Maligai, Saidapet Chennai.
4. The Planning Director District Rural Development Tiruvallur Tiruvallur District.
5. The Commissioner Gummudipoondi Union Gummudipoondi Tiruvallur District.
+1CC to Mr.S.Sugendran Advocate, SR.NO.7786. +1CC to Mr.Ma.Gouthaman Advocate, SR.NO.8592. +1CC to The Government Pleader High Court ,Madras SR.NO.8062.
W.P.No.13935 of 2020 MP(CO) NRA(17/03/2021)