Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3221 (MAD)

S. Arumugam v. State Government of Tamil Nadu

2014-09-10

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : R. Mahadevan, J. 1. The petitioner claiming himself to be a social activist filed this petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the official respondents to enquire into the matter with regard to the malpractice committed by the respondents 7 and 8 in granting the drought relief for the poor agriculturist through Q1142, Mustakuruchi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society of Kamuthi Taluk in Ramanathapuram District. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Mustakurichi Village, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. In Mustakurichi Village, there is a cooperative credit society in the name of Mustakurichi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, with 300 members. During the year 2012-2013, the Government of Tamil Nadu granted a sum of Rs.2,200/-per acre towards drought relief to the agriculturists those who had suffered heavy loss in their agricultural activities. For sanctioning the relief, the list of the beneficiaries is to be prepared by the Revenue and Agriculture Department officials and thereafter, the same would be approved by the Village Administrative Officer, Revenue Inspector, Tahsildar and the Assistant Agriculture Officers. Thereafter, the said list of beneficiaries would be sent to the respective Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society for the approval of the Secretaries of the respective societies. While so, the eighth respondent, taking advantage of his position as President of the Mustakuruchi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, with the connivance of the Revenue Officials, had malafidely acted and prepared a list of beneficiaries those who were actually not eligible to receive the drought relief and thereby committed malpractice. In this regard, the petitioner had submitted representation to the first and second respondents for appropriate action. Since no action has been taken against the respondents 7 and 8, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the above prayer. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6 had submitted that the representation given by the petitioner had been considered, enquiry was conducted and a report had also been filed by the fifth respondent vide proceedings dated 10.07.2014 in Na.Ka.No.1184/2013. The said proceedings has also been communicated to the petitioner who received the same. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. The said proceedings has also been communicated to the petitioner who received the same. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6. 5. The petitioner has agitated the matter by way of Public Interest Litigation, for which he has no locus standi. However, the authorities considered the representation and appropriate enquiry was conducted and the same was also communicated to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner is met with. Therefore, no further order is necessary in this petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.