1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)Nos.1415 of 2011 and 1416 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.1415 of 2011: V.Vellaisamy ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Dindigul. 2.The Block Development Officer,Sanarpatty,Dindigul. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sanarpatti Police Station, Sanarpatti,Dindigul. 5.Sathiyaraj ...Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action nder the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, against the 5th respondent on the representation of the petitioner dated 18.01.2011. W.P.(MD)No.1416 of 2011: K.Balakrishnan ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Dindigul. 2.The Block Development Officer,Sanarpatty,Dindigul. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sanarpatti Police Station, Sanarpatti,Dindigul. 5.Sathiyaraj ...Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, against the 5th respondent on the representation of the petitioner dated 18.01.2011. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Karuna For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Md.Mohideen, AGP for R1 to R4 Mr.K.Hariharan for R5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 COMMON ORDER The petitioners are the resident of Kavarayapatti in Koovanoothu Village, Dindigul Taluk. In these two Writ petitions the petitioners sought for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the 5th respondent the then President of the Panchayat pursuant to the representation dated 18.01.2011. 2.In the representation, the petitioners made allegations against the 5th respondent stating that he has damaged the property including the standing trees in their land of the petitioners. He also abused with bad words and threatening them with dare consequences. 3.These Writ petitions when it came up on 07.02.2011, notice of motion was ordered. On notice, the 2nd respondent / Block Development Officer has filed a counter affidavit dated 20.10.2011. 4.In the counter affidavit it is stated that the no representation has been received in their office and the allegations made by the petitioners were all false. However, consequent upon the election to the local body, the elections have been held and new set of office bearers have been elected. 5.The learned counsel for the 5th respondent fairly admits that the 5th respondent contested in the election and also lost the same. Therefore, the question of taking action on the representation will not arise. But, however, with reference to the criminal action of the 5th respondent, it is for the petitioners to lodge appropriate complaint before the jurisdictional police station and on such complaint, the Police is bound to take note of the same and initiate appropriate action. 6.With these observation, the Writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Dindigul. 2.The Block Development Officer, Sanarpatty, Dindigul. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 4.The Sub Inspector of Police,Sanarpatti Police Station, Sanarpatti,Dindigul. +1cc to M/s.V.Karuna, Advocate,SR.No.38009 nbj GH : 15.11.2011 : 2p/6c W.P.(MD)Nos.1415 and 1416 of 2011 02.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/