Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2527 (MAD)

G. Isac Aruldhas v. District Collector, Nagercoil

2014-08-11

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent herein, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 08.05.2013 and 28.05.2013 within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court. 2. The petitioner is the Area Committee Member of Communist Party of India (Marxist), Thiruvattar and he was Ex-Councillor of Verkilambi Town Panchayat. The said Town Panchayat is divided as three Zones, viz., 'A' Zone, 'B' Zone and 'C' Zone for the purpose of fixation and collection of house tax and property tax. It is alleged that the fourth respondent is collecting the property tax from the residents of 'A' Zone by illegally fixing the value of those as that of located in the other Zones. According to him, the property tax was collected from the residents of 'C' Zone as applicable to the 'A' Zone. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his representation dated 08.05.2013 submitted to the respondents 1 and 2 seeking appropriate action against the fourth respondent, followed by the reminder dated 28.05.2013, no action has been forthcoming from the official respondents. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Heard Mr.S.Bharathy Kannan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. It is seen that the petitioner made several applications under the Right to Information Act to the authorities concerned and they were duly replied, by furnishing the information sought for by the petitioner. 6. In the communication of the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.62/2011, dated 05.04.2013, addressed to the Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Nagercoil, it was categorically stated that there were no such misappropriation as alleged by the petitioner and appropriate steps would be taken to levy taxes in respect of the unapproved buildings. 7. This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation, without any material evidence so as to direct the respondents to take action on the representation of the petitioner. Considering the same, we find no cause or reason to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition fails. 8. In fine, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.