Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard Mr.M.Kannan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mr.D.Sasikumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the sixth respondent for the misappropriation of the funds, belonging to the fifth respondent panchayat, from the year 2006. 3. The petitioner has stated that he has filed the present Writ Petition, as a Public Interest Litigation, on behalf of the villagers of A.Punavasal Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. It has been stated that Ramanathapuram District is a drought prone and economically backward District. Therefore, the people of the said District are mainly depending upon the welfare measures and the schemes, being implemented by the State Government, through the panchayts concerned. 4. It has been further stated that the sixth respondent herein had been elected as the President of A.Punavasal Village Panchayat, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, during the election held in the year, 2006. After having taken charge of the post of the President of the said panchayat, the sixth respondent had failed to implement the welfare measures, contemplated by the State Government. She had not taken any steps to reduce the unemployment problem in the area concerned, inspite of several representations having been made to her. Instead, she had been mis-utilizing and misappropriating the panchayts funds, from the time she had assumed charge as the President of the said panchayat. From the audit reports available, pertaining to the years 2006 to 2011, it could be seen that she had misappropriated the panchayts funds to the tune of more than Rs.30,00,000/-. Inspite of such irregularities being pointed out in the audit reports, no action had been taken for the recovery of the money, from the sixth respondent, under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats [Issue and Disposal of Audit Report of Village Panchayats] Rules, 2000. Further, no surcharge proceedings or criminal prosecution had been initiated against the sixth respondent. Inspite of such irregularities being pointed out in the audit reports, no action had been taken for the recovery of the money, from the sixth respondent, under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats [Issue and Disposal of Audit Report of Village Panchayats] Rules, 2000. Further, no surcharge proceedings or criminal prosecution had been initiated against the sixth respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to highlight the irregularities committed by the sixth respondent, including the misappropriation of the panchayat funds and to direct the authorities concerned to initiate appropriate action against the sixth respondent, based on the audit reports. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the sixth respondent had been misappropriating the funds of A.Punavasal Village Panchayat, to the tune of more than Rs.30,00,000/-, as seen from the audit reports, submitted for the years 2006 to 2011. Inspite of the various representations made to the authorities concerned, no action had been initiated against the sixth respondent, till date. Therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to prefer the present Writ Petition, before this Court, as a Public Interest Litigation, requesting this Court to direct the authorities concerned to initiate appropriate action against the sixth respondent and to recover the funds belonging to the A.Punavasal Village Panchayat, as per the Tamil Nadu Panchayats [Issue and Disposal of Audit Report of Village Panchayats] Rules, 2000. The learned counsel had relied on the following decisions, in support of his contentions:- (i). Anbazhagan, K. The Superintendent of Police, reported in 2003 (4) CTC 609;- (ii). Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr.Manmohan Singh and another, reported in 2012 (1) LW [Crl] 225. 6. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 had submitted that the father and brother of the petitioner had filed several cases, in W.P. [MD].No.4769 of 2012, W.P.[MD].No.2262 of 2012, W.P.[MD].No.3661 of 2012, Crl.OP. [MD].No.1858 of 2012, Crl.OP.[MD].No.4243 of 2012, Crl.OP.[MD].No.5809 of 2012, and Crl.OP.[MD].No.2403 of 2012, seeking similar reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present Writ Petition. It has been pointed out that the learned Single Judges of this Court had dismissed the said matters, as the petitioners therein had not made out any case against the sixth respondent. [MD].No.1858 of 2012, Crl.OP.[MD].No.4243 of 2012, Crl.OP.[MD].No.5809 of 2012, and Crl.OP.[MD].No.2403 of 2012, seeking similar reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present Writ Petition. It has been pointed out that the learned Single Judges of this Court had dismissed the said matters, as the petitioners therein had not made out any case against the sixth respondent. The learned counsel had further submitted that, in fact, the Writ Petitions, in W.P. [MD].No.4769 of 2012, W.P.[MD].No.2262 of 2012, and W.P.[MD].No.3661 of 2012, had been dismissed, as withdrawn, on 17.07.2012, without obtaining liberty to file similar Writ Petitions, thereafter. 7. It had been further stated that an aunt of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition had contested in the election, against the sixth respondent. As she had lost the election, some of the family members have been filing various cases against the sixth respondent, with a mala fide motive of bringing disrepute to the sixth respondent. No proof has been shown, by the petitioner, to substantiate the claim that the sixth respondent has been misappropriating the panchayat funds, as alleged by him. Further, an enquiry had been conducted against the allegations levelled against the sixth respondent. The authority, who had conducted the enquiry, had given a report, pointed out that the minor irregularities pointed out in the audit reports had been rectified. In such circumstances, there is no need for conducting any fresh enquiry against the frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations made by the petitioner against the sixth respondent. As such, the Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, in limine, with exemplary costs. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the relief, as prayed for by him, in the present Writ Petition. Even though serious allegations have been made against the sixth respondent, stating that she had misappropriated the funds, belonging to A.Punavasal Village Panchayat, the petitioner has not been in a position to substantiate his claims, with sufficient evidence. The irregularities said to have been pointed out in the audit reports, for the years 2006 to 2011, are not serious in nature. The irregularities said to have been pointed out in the audit reports, for the years 2006 to 2011, are not serious in nature. The authority, who had conducted an enquiry with regard to the said irregularities, had also submitted a report stating that the said irregularities had been rectified. Further, it is the specific case of the sixth respondent that the petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition, with the mala fide motive of bringing disrepute to the sixth respondent. 9. It had also been pointed out that an aunt of the petitioner, had contested the panchayat election, against the sixth respondent and had lost the election. Thereafter, the father and the brother of the petitioner had been filing various Criminal Original Petitions, in Crl.OP. [MD].No.1858 of 2012, Crl.OP.[MD].No.4243 of 2012, Crl.OP.[MD].No.5809 of 2012 and Crl.OP.[MD].No.2403 of 2012, and several Writ Petitions, in W.P.[MD].No.4769 of 2012, W.P. [MD].No.2262 of 2012, W.P.[MD].No.3661 of 2012, before this Court, alleging that the sixth respondent had misappropriated the funds of A.Punavasal Village Panchayat. However, it could be seen that the said Criminal Original Petitions had been dismissed, by the learned Single Judges of this Court, by their orders, dated 12.04.2012, 17.04.2012, 07.06.2012, and 29.03.2012, as the petitioners therein had not been able to substantiate the allegations levelled against the sixth respondent. Even in the Criminal Original Petitions, cited supra, the learned Single Judges of this Court, by their orders, dated 12.04.2012, 17.04.2012, 07.06.2012, and 29.03.2012, had found that an enquiry had been conducted, with regard to the allegations levelled against the sixth respondent and it had been found that there was no substance in such allegations. The Writ Petitions, in W.P.[MD].No.4769 of 2012, W.P.[MD].No.2262 of 2012 and W.P.[MD].No.3661 of 2012, had been dismissed, as withdrawn, on 17.07.2012, without any liberty being granted for filing similar petitions, at a later point of time. 10. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to hold that the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, based on frivolous allegations. It is also found that the petitioner and his family members have been filing various Writ Petitions and Criminal Original Petitions, cited supra, before this Court, making similar allegations against the sixth respondent, repeatedly, without having sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims. Thus, it could be seen that the present Writ Petition has not been filed by the petitioner in public interest. Thus, it could be seen that the present Writ Petition has not been filed by the petitioner in public interest. Further, we are of the view that the filing of such frivolous Writ Petitions ought to be discouraged. Therefore, we are inclined to impose an exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/-, payable by the petitioner to the sixth respondent. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed, with cost of Rs.5,000/-, payable by the petitioner to the sixth respondent.