Abdul Rahman v. The Superintendent Of Police
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved On :
29.07.2024 Pronounced On :
25.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Abdulrahman ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Central Range, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Trichy.
3.Venkatesan 4.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15.
(R4 is suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated 08.07.2024 in WP(MD)No.15021 of 2024) ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate criminal action against the 3rd respondent by considering the petitioner's representations dated 27.05.2024 expeditiously within the time stipulated as prescribed by this Court.
1/9
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2 Mr.T.Vadivelan for R3 Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader for R4 * * * * *
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus by directing the first and second respondents to take appropriate criminal action against the third respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2024.
2.The writ petitioner is the resident of Valanadu, Marungapuri Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. He made a representation to first and second respondent dated 27.05.2024 to take action against the third respondent and other persons alleging acts of malpractice in the digging of borewells and installation of motors. The third respondent and other Officers without digging the borewells and erecting new pipelines and installation of new motors, defrauded the Government's fund of Rs.90,00,000/-(Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only) by making 2/9
false records, as if they properly worked. It is also alleged that against the third respondent Valanadu Police Station have registered some other case for committing illegality that he had misused the Government property. The first respondent/Vigilance and anti-corruption department has not taken any steps and hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court. 3.This Court Suo Motu impleaded the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15, as the fourth respondent by an order dated 08.07.2024.
4.The learned Additional Advocate General appeared and submitted the status report along with necessary documents and he also informed that enquiry was conducted by the department on the basis of the allegation and the enquiry conducted by the department did not disclose any misappropriation of Government fund. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the fourth respondent had directed his subordinate officers to conduct the enquiry. The said subordinate officers further directed the local officers to go into the issues and the local officers found no such irregularities. 3/9
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first and second respondent on instructions submitted that the request made by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 was declined by the fourth respondent. In such circumstances, he has requested to pass any order. He further submitted that the Vigilance and Anti-corruption department has made an enquiry and found materials and then only sought permission from the department under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. 6.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7.The Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department in its report dated 27.12.
2023 found that there was some material to show that no substantial work was done. They found prima facie material to conduct the investigation. Therefore, they sent a communication seeking approval under Section 17 A Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
5/9
6/9
8.From the report of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption dated 27.12.2023, it is clear that a prima facie case is made out to register the case. But, the report of the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15 is not satisfactory. Even perusal of this report, shows prima facie materials. Therefore, this Court issues direction to the first and second respondents to register the case and investigate the matter as per law.
9.This Court has earlier dismissed the petition without costs. The same is not a ground to shut the eyes of this Court when there is material allegation against the persons that they misappropriated huge funds of the Government. 10.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 25.10.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No RJR/sbn 7/9
To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Central Range, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Trichy.
3.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15.
8/9
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
RJR/sbn Pre-delivery order made in 25.10.2024 9/9