Madras High CourtWP/10325/2014disposed of

Mr.V.Krishnasamy v. The District Collector

2021-11-26Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26-11-2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM WP No.10325 of 2014 And MP No.1 of 2014 Mr.V.Krishnasamy .. Petitioner vs.

1.The District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Namakkal District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, District Collectorate Office, Namakkal District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collectorate Office, Namakkal District.

4.The Tahsildar, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District.

5.Mr.G.Panneerselvam 6.A.Vijayakumar (R-6 impleaded vide order of Court dated 26.11.2021 made in MP No.2 of 2014 in WP 10325 of 2014) ..

Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take action on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner dated 11.11.2013 against the fifth respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.Kumar Rajan for M/s.Kumar and Baskar For Respondents-1 to 4 : Mr.C.Selvaraj, Additional Government Pleader.

For Respondent-5 : Mr.Vimalraj for Mr.N.R.Anantha Ramakrishnan For Respondent-6 : Mr.Victor Prasath

O R D E R

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the first respondent to take action on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 11.11.2013 against the fifth respondent.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent-Deputy Tahsildar committed certain illegalities in dealing with the revenue records and the petitioner was affected due to such illegal activities. However, an appeal filed by the petitioner was considered and the patta illegally granted was cancelled.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the fifth respondent was allowed to retire from service and even before the date of retirement, he has taken away all the original registers and patta transfer disposal files from the office and a criminal case was registered against the fifth respondent at the instance of the petitioner. When such serious allegations are raised against the public officials, the first respondent-District Collector is bound to initiate appropriate action. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that in spite of the representation of the petitioner, no action has been taken.

4. Under these circumstances, the District Collector should look into the issues and ensure that the office files, if at all taken out from the Office is restored and if not, all suitable actions are initiated and the persons, who all are responsible and accountable, are prosecuted in the manner known to law. However, on account of efflux of time, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with all the required documents.

5. With the abovesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Svn To 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Namakkal District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, District Collectorate Office, Namakkal District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collectorate Office, Namakkal District.

4.The Tahsildar, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District.

+1cc to Mr.S.Victor Prasath, Advocate SR.No.62377 +1cc to Mr.R.Anantha Ramakrishnan, Advocate SR.No.62273 +1cc to Government Pleader, SR.No.61988 WP 10325 of 2014 PA(CO) GN(14/12/2021)