K.Kannaiyan v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.08.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.[MD]No.7759 of 2018 K.Kannaiyan : Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.
3. The Inspector of Police, Siruganur Police Station, Trichy District.
4. The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Trichy.
5. Latha, Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union, Mannachanallur, Trichy District.
6. S.Ramesh, S/o. Sannasi, Ex-President, Siruganoor Village Panchayat, Mannachanallur Panchayat Union, Trichy District.
7. Tamilselvan, S/o. Periyasamy, Secretary, Siruganur Village Panchayat, Mannachanallur Taluk, Trichy District.
: Respondents [Cause title amended vide Court order dated 20.08.2018 in W.M.P.[MD]No.7879/18]
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to transfer the investigation in Crime No.299 of 2016 from the file of the third respondent to the file of the fourth respondent and further direct the fourth respondent to conduct investigation in accordance with law and file final report. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents 1 to 5 : Mr.B.Bhagawathi Government Advocate For Respondent No.6 : P.Mahendran For Respondent No.7 : Mr.V.Muthu Samundeeswaran
O R D E R
************ This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the second respondent to transfer the investigation pending in Crime No.299 of 2016 from the file of the third respondent to the file of the fourth respondent.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that several maladministration, misappropriation, embezzlement has been done at Siruganur Village Panchayat from the year 2006 to 2016 and the same has resulted in both departmental proceedings against the respondents 6 and 7 and also registration of FIR. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of registration of the FIR, no progress has been made in the investigation.
3.The learned Counsel for the sixth and seventh respondents would submit that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition and the petitioner was a person who contested in the President election against the sixth respondent and therefore, he has a personal grudge in filing one petition after another against the sixth and seventh respondents and there is absolutely no bona fide in this writ petition.
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 would submit that the case is under investigation and at this point of time, there is no necessity to change the investigation to other agency.
5.At this stage, this Court does not want to get into the merits of the case. The fact remains that public interest is involved and therefore, a proper investigation has to be conducted by the respondent police. It is suffice, if a direction is issued to the second respondent to supervise the investigation done by the third respondent in Crime No.299 of 2016. The third respondent is directed to conduct an effective investigation and file a final report as expeditiously as possible and the second
respondent is directed to effectively supervise the investigation done by the third respondent.
6.The Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above direction. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-I) To
1. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.
3. The Inspector of Police, Siruganur Police Station, Trichy District.
4. The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Trichy.
5. The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union, Mannachanallur, Trichy District.
+ 1 CC TO Mr.T.LENINKUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 79381 + 1 CC TO Mr.P.MAHENDRAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 79428 + 1 CC TO M/s.J.MADHU, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 79336 MR TE/SKN/SAR-1 : 17/09/2018 : 3P/9C W.P.[MD]No.7759 of 2018 20.08.2018