R.Kolanthaiammal, v. The District Collector,

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

The Office has placed a note seeking clarification from this court as to the fate of Rs.5,000/- which has been deposited by the writ petitioner pursuant to the interim order passed by my Predecessor dated 23.03.2022 as the said amount has been deposited already by the writ petitioner in an interest fetching account in a Nationalized Bank in the name of Registrar General of this Court.

2.I have perused the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the learned Judge, wherein he has stated the following:

"4.In order to show bonafides, the petitioner shall produce an interest fetching fixed deposit receipt for Rs.5,000/- from any Nationalized Bank in Chennai in the name of Registrar-General, Madras High Court, Chennai and hand over the same to the Registry of this Court under written acknowledgment by 06.04.2022 and in the event the contention of the petitioner is found to be false, it shall 1/4

be forfeited and on the contrary, if the contention of the petitioner is true, the petitioner would not only be entitled to refund, but further costs from the respondents." 3.The learned Judge has made it clear that in order to test the bonafide on the part of the writ petitioner, the said amount as a precondition was directed to be deposited and accordingly, in a Nationalized Bank the said amount has been deposited. However, whether the petitioner is entitled to get back the said amount depends upon the fate of the case where the contention of the petitioner is found to be false, it shall be forfeited and on the contrary if the contention of the petitioner is found to be true, the petitioner would not only be entitled to refund, but further costs from the respondents.

4.Here, the writ petition was disposed of by my order dated 11.07.2022 where I found that the plea raised by the writ petitioner that she belong to the same Village and therefore, she is entitled to get appointment as Anganwadi worker was found to be untrue. Therefore, the writ petition 2/4

was ordered in favour of the 5th respondent who was subsequently impleaded in the writ petition for consideration of her candidature to be appointed as Anganwadi worker.

5.Therefore, as per paragraph 4 of the said order dated 23.03.2022 of the learned Judge since the stand of the petitioner or contention of the petitioner was found to be false, she is not entitled to get the said money. Therefore, she has to necessarily forfeit the said amount and hence, the said amount can be withdrawn from the account where it was deposited and can be utilized for any other purpose for which any contingency expenses to be met by the High Court.

6.With this clarification and direction, the note submitted by the Registry is answered.

23.08.2023 cse 3/4

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

cse 23.08.2023 4/4