logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 MHC 7347 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WP No. 3403 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
Parties : L. Shanmugam Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: K. Karthikeyan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R4 & R5, C. Selvaraj, Additional Government Pleader, R6 & R7, B. Tamilnidhi, Additional Government Pleader, R8, K. Thiruvengadam, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 02-12-2025
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the 4th respondent to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the 7th respondent for granting permission to lay concrete road in S. No 372 / 17 in Patta land located in Punjai Kolanalli Village, Kodumudi, Taluk, Erode District based on the findings of the 3rd respondent order dated 31.10.2023.)

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the 4th respondent to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the 7th respondent for granting permission to lay concrete road in S. No. 372 / 17 in Patta land located in Punjai Kolanalli Village, Kodumudi, Taluk, Erode District based on the findings of the 3rd respondent order dated 31.10.2023.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Councilor elected by the 6th respondent Panchayat. It is stated that the 7th respondent try to lay the road in the patta land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a complaint before the 4th respondent for initiation of appropriate action against the 7th respondent. Since no order was passed, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court may issue a direction to the 4th respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 23.08.2023 and 24.08.2023 and pass appropriate orders.

4. It is seen that for the very same allegation, the petitioner approached the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman passed the order on 31.10.2023. However, action against the 7th respondent has not been taken. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. If the 7th respondent is laying the road in the patta land, the land owner has to adjudicate the issue, not by the petitioner. Hence, the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal