Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2600 (MAD)

Murugeswari v. District Collector, Pudukottai

2014-08-13

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to comply the order passed by this Court, in W.P.(MD) No.1741 of 2013, dated 04.04.2014, at the earliest. 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is an elected President of Manamelkudi Panchayat Board coming under the domain of the second respondent. Earlier, one Prabhu, a resident of Manamelkudi, had filed a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No.1741 of 2013 against the petitioner and one Vellaiyammal, who was the former Secretary of Manamelkudi Panchayat Board, alleging malpractice in implementing NREGS Scheme and sought for mandamus to hold an enquiry and bring the wrong doers to justice. After hearing both sides, a Division Bench of this Court had passed an order, dated 04.04.2014, directing the first respondent to enquire the allegations raised against the petitioner and the said Vellaiyammal, in their presence and to take appropriate action according to law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy the order. While so, on 30.05.2014, the second respondent had taken away all the documents from the office of the Manamelkudi Panchayat Board threatening the Secretary, namely, one Muthukumar, stating that the documents are to be produced before the third respondent. According to the petitioner, the act of the second respondent would hamper the enquiry to be conducted by the first respondent, as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, on 03.06.2014, the petitioner had sent a representation to the first respondent to hold the enquiry, as per the directions of this Court, with copies to respondents 2 and 3 herein. Since there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard Mr. N. Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. T.S. Mohamed Mohideen, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. On earlier occasion, by order dated, 04.04.2014, in W.P.(MD) No.1741 of 2013, this Court had directed the first respondent to enquire into the matter within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In that writ petition, the petitioner was arrayed as the second respondent. 4. On earlier occasion, by order dated, 04.04.2014, in W.P.(MD) No.1741 of 2013, this Court had directed the first respondent to enquire into the matter within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In that writ petition, the petitioner was arrayed as the second respondent. When such a direction was issued by this Court for proper enquiry, there is no necessity for the petitioner to file the present writ petition, without arraying the petitioner and the third respondent therein as parties. Hence, we find no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.