1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.P.(MD).No.5393 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 C.Baskaran : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector/ Inspector of Panchayats, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, Ramanathapuram. 3.The Mudhal Nadu Village Panchayat, Rep by its President Tmt.Alagammal, Kamudhi Union, Ramanathapuram District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to take over the charge of cutting the Kattu Karuvel Trees from the third respondent relating to Serial No.12 in the second respondent's auction proceedings vide Na.Ka.No.1759/2010/Ku, dated 03.09.2010 and carryout the cutting of the Kattu Karuvel Trees and deposit the sale proceeds to the account of petitioner's Mudhal Nadu Village Panchayat, Kamudhi Union, Ramanathapuram District. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkateswaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Janakiramulu Special Government Pleader O R D E R [Order of the Court was made BY K.SUGUNA, J] This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:- "to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to take over the charge of cutting the Kattu Karuvel Trees from the third respondent relating to Serial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 No.12 in the second respondent's auction proceedings vide Na.Ka.No.1759/2010/Ku, dated 03.09.2010 and carryout the cutting of the Kattu Karuvel Trees and deposit the sale proceeds to the account of petitioner's Mudhal Nadu Village Panchayat, Kamudhi Union, Ramanathapuram District." 2. The gist of the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is that the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, the first respondent herein, has to inspect the cutting of Karuvel Trees and for the consequential auctions. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Mudhal Nadu Village, Kamudhi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. There was a proposal to cut the Karuvela Trees, which are standing in the Kanmai of the said village. Basing on the Government Order, on the price fixed by the Forest Department, the said contract was given in favour of the third respondent Panchayat. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the third respondent - Panchayat President, without conducting open auction, had entrusted the work of cutting the trees to one Mari for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and the said amount was not deposited in the account of the village panchayat. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said Mari is cutting the trees beyond the auctioned area. Basing on these two grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for allowing of the Writ Petition. 5. We have considered the above submissions. 6. We are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition, for the reason that though a stand is taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the President of the said village panchayat by name Alagammal has committed some fraud and she has not deposited the amount in the account of the village panchayat, which was received by her from the sub contractor, unfortunately, the said Alagammal is not impleaded in her personal capacity as a party respondent to this Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also not willing to implead the said Alagammal in her personal capacity as a party respondent to this Writ Petition. 7. As per the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the sub contract was given to one Mari, who is also not impleaded as a party respondent to this Writ Petition. The reason given by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is frightened to implead the said Mari. But, we are not able to accept the said stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having come before this Court with such a prayer, the reasoning of the learned counsel for the petitioner for non - impleading the said Mari, against whom certain allegations have been levelled by the petitioner, cannot be accepted. Consequently, on the ground of non – jointer of necessary party, the relief sought for by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the petitioner cannot be granted. 8. Apart from the above, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, only four days before, the said contract has been given to the said Mari and the representation has been given to the first respondent on 27.04.2011. The Writ Petition has been filed on 28.04.2011. Having made a representation to the District Collector on 27.04.2011, in our considered opinion that at least a breathing time should have been given to him to consider the representation dated 27.04.2011 submitted by the petitioner and pass orders. However, the very next day, i.e., on 28.04.2011, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 9. Yet another stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said Mari is cutting trees beyond the auctioned areas. In support of his contention, no particulars are produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Here is a case, where the third respondent panchayat was given the contract by the Forest Department. If cutting of trees is done beyond the auctioned area, it is for the Forest Department to take action as against the concerned individual. But, the petitioner has not made any representation to the Forest Department and no such representation is enclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Mari is cutting the trees beyond the auctioned areas cannot be accepted. 10. Apart from the above, having taken contract for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and if the President, under sub - contract, is able to get income of Rs.20,00,000/- to the panchayat, certainly, in our opinion, it is the profit earning process. Consequently, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the President has given sub - contract illegally to the third party cannot be accepted. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced any specific particulars with regard to the date on which the sub - contract was given to the private individual. Consequently, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if actually sub - contract has been given with regard to the cutting of trees and if they cut the trees beyond the auctioned areas, the District Collector is directed to ascertain the same and take appropriate action and also directed to ascertain as to whether the amount has been deposited as per the Rules and Regulations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/ Deputy Registrar (LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The District Collector/ Inspector of Panchayats, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, Ramanathapuram. 3. Tmt.Alagammal, President, The Mudhal Nadu Village Panchayat, Kamudhi Union, Ramanathapuram District. +1cc to Mr.R.Venkateswaran, Advocate, Sr.No.15974 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 16356 ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.5393 of 2011 29.04.2011 NB SMA/14.06.2011/6C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/