Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1556 (MAD)

A. Asaithambi v. State of Tamilnadu

2017-06-02

INDIRA BANERJEE, M.SUNDAR

body2017
ORDER : M. Sundar, J. There is an office note on maintainability of this writ petition. The maintainability aspect is mainly in terms of the writ petitioners (five in number) taking out an application under Rule 2-B of the Rules of the Madras High Court to regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it may not be necessary to take out an application under the said Rule 2-B, as this is a public interest litigation. 3. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the instant case and particularly the fact that the allegation of the petitioners regarding bogus ration cards was found to be true, we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case and take up the matter on merits at the SR stage itself. 4. This writ petition has been filed by five individuals styling the same as public interest litigation. 5. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus. The prayer in the writ petition with regard to certiorari limb assails an order dated 24.11.2016 (signed on 23.11.2016) bearing Na.Ka.No.1/9283/2016, passed by the fifth respondent before us (jurisdictional Tahsildar). The mandamus limb of the prayer is to direct the fifth respondent to act according to the communication of the second respondent before us (Commissioner of Department of Civil Supplies), dated 24.08.2016. 6. The matter pertains to issuance of family ration cards. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the sixth respondent (private respondent) had obtained bogus family ration cards. The petitioners took up the case, sent representations and pursued the matter, all of which culminated in the above said order dated 24.08.2016 made by the second respondent before us. It is more in the nature of a communication (than an order) from the second respondent to the authorities below him. This communication bears reference as Na.Ka.E.Spl/1/15602/2016. 7. This communication, in sum and substance, says that the authorities below the second respondent should make an inspection and enquire into the allegation that four ration cards, for which numbers have been specifically given by the writ petitioners, are bogus. This communication bears reference as Na.Ka.E.Spl/1/15602/2016. 7. This communication, in sum and substance, says that the authorities below the second respondent should make an inspection and enquire into the allegation that four ration cards, for which numbers have been specifically given by the writ petitioners, are bogus. This communication also says that if it is found to be bogus, proceedings for cancellation of the same should be initiated and a complaint in the police department shall be given by the authorities below in this regard against those whom, according to the authorities, are culpable. 8. The fifth respondent before us (jurisdictional Tahsildar) conducted an enquiry/ inspection and found that three out of the four family ration cards are bogus. The authorities also initiated proceedings and cancelled the same. This position is not disputed and it is admitted by the petitioners in the affidavit before us. It is also not disputed by the writ petitioners' counsel at the time of hearing. 9. Therefore, the only grievance that survives is that a police complaint has not been given against those who are responsible for issuance of bogus ration cards. 10. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that on the basis of the bogus ration cards, the sixth respondent has obtained patta for some lands under a beneficial scheme and has also used the bogus ration cards for obtaining certain benefits. 11. In the light of the fact that the authorities have inspected, enquired into the matter and cancelled the bogus ration cards, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. We, however, make it clear that it is open to the writ petitioners to approach the authorities concerned qua launching of criminal complaint against those culpable, in accordance with law. We also make it clear that it is open to the writ petitioners to assail any benefits that may have been obtained by the sixth respondent or any other individual based on the bogus ration cards, which have now been cancelled. 12. This writ petition is, accordingly, rejected at the SR stage. There shall be no order as to costs.