Madras High CourtWP(MD)/13878/2022disposed of

Dharmalingam v. The District Collector

2022-08-25Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan4 pages

1 W.P.(MD)NO.13878 OF 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.08.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.13878 of 2022 Dharmalingam ... Petitioner Vs.

1 The District Collector, Collectorate Buildings, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

2 The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Buildings, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

3 The Assistant Director (Panchayat), Collectorate Buildings, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

4 The Block Development Officer, Sathankulam Block Office, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.

5 The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

6 The Village Administrative Officer, Eluvaraimooki Village, Thoothukudi District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing 1/4

2 W.P.(MD)NO.13878 OF 2022 the respondents to take appropriate steps to complete the construction works of the petitioner's house at Survey. No.363/1M2 to the extent of 7 cents situated at Eluvaraimooki Village, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District under the Government Scheme by considering petitioner's representation dated 14.02.2022 within a stipulated period framed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Balamurugan For Respondents: Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader.

* * *

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the construction of the house under the Government subsidy scheme was not fully constructed and he wants this Court to direct the respondents to take steps for completing same. 2/4

3 W.P.(MD)NO.13878 OF 2022

3. I went through the representation earlier given by the writ petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though apart from the subsidy amount, a further sum of Rs.50,000/- was taken from him together with minerals, the construction work was not properly done. Having taken such a stand before the authorities, the petitioner's counsel now wants to argue that the entire subsidy amount was not remitted to his account.

4. I notice a clear dichotomy between the stand taken before me and the stand taken before the revenue authorities. I am satisfied that the subsidy amount was released but the petitioner was probably cheated by the contractor concerned. It is for the petitioner to proceed against the contractor. Leaving open the other rights and remedies of the petitioner, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 25.08.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

3/4

4 W.P.(MD)NO.13878 OF 2022 PMU To: