- Court
- High Court of Madras
- Decided
- 15 September 2023
- Bench
- S Justice S.Srimathy
- Case no.
- WP(MD) 12976/2020
Judgment
ORDER This writ petition is filed for Writ of Mandamus to take action based on the communication dated 04.05.2020 issued in Na.Ka.No.154/2020/T8 by the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent had directed to visit the spot, ascertain the allegation submitted by the petitioner in his representation dated 19.04.2020 and submit report.
¶2Heard Mr.Mr.C.Baskaran, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, Mr.B.Praveen Kumar, the Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 & 5 and perused the material documents available on record.
¶3The contention of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is an elected Union Chairman. But her husband is carrying the work of the Chairman. In short, the 5th respondent is occupying the 4th respondent's chair in the Union Office and he is carrying out the duty of the Chairman. In support of his contention, the 4th respondent has produced photographs, in which the 5th respondent is sitting on the chair of the Chairman. The petitioner is relying on the name board. The Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 & 5 submitted that the name board is no clear, hence it cannot be assumed that the name of the 4th respondent is in the name board. It is seen that the name board is not clear, but it is an admitted fact that the 4th respondent is the elected chairman and not the 5th respondent. The 4th and 5th respondents have not denied that the fact that the 5th respondent is sitting in the office of the 4th respondent. In such circumstances the 5th respondent cannot sit in the office of the 4th respondent, when the 5th respondent is not the elected chairman.
¶4In such circumstances, the 5th respondent is not entitled to sit on that chair and carry the duties of the 4th respondent. Therefore, the 5th respondent is restrained from carrying out any duties of the 4th respondent.
¶5As far as the next contention is concerned, the 1st respondent has submitted a complaint to the District Collector. Without considering the complaint of the petitioner, the 1st respondent has forwarded the same to the Zonal Officer. The District Collector, being the Inspector of Panchayats is bound to consider the complaint. Therefore, the District Collector is directed to consider the petitioner's complaint dated 19.04.2020 and pass speaking order on merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
¶6With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Index : Yes / No
15.09.2023 Internet : Yes
ksa To:
¶1The Inspector of Panchayats & and the District Collector, Madurai District. Madurai.
¶2The Assistant Director (Panchayats), Madurai District, Madurai.
¶3The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats), T.Kallupatti Panchayat Union, Madurai District. S.SRIMATHY, J ksa W.P.(MD)No.12976 of 2020
15.09.2023
Case details
Parties and counsel
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.09.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P.(MD)No.12976 of 2020 N.Ganasekaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Inspector of Panchayats & and the District Collector, Madurai District. Madurai. 2. The Assistant Director (Panchayats), Madurai District, Madurai. 3. The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats), T.Kallupatti Panchayat Union, Madurai District. 4. P. Sanmugapriya 5. Pavadayan ... Respondents (R4 and R5 are Impleaded Vide Court Order Dated 06.07.2023) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ to take action to the order passed by the 1st respondent herein the 1st respondent has passed an order on Na.Ka.No.154/2020/T8 dated 04.05.2020 take away under the issue the misappropriating the village work and as illegal the provisions of section 113 and 114 of the Panchayat Act 1994 Sillarpatti village Panchayat, Madurai District, by considering his representation, dated 19.04.2020. For Respondents : Mr.C.Baskaran, Government Advocate, for R-1 to R-3 Mr.B.Praveen Kumar, for R-4 & R-5
Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.