1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)NO.12642 of 2011 R.Jawahar ... Petitioner Versus 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Tuticorin District. 2.The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9. 3.The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayats, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to appoint a special officer to inspect all the documents referred in the petitioner's representation dated 10.10.2011 along with the vouchers to be inspected by Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tuticorin and thereafter submit a report to the 1st respondent for proper follow up action. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundram For R - 1 & R -2 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader. For R - 3 : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja, Government Advocate. O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking the appointment of a Special Officer to inspect the documents referred to in his representation dated 10.10.2011. 2. Heard Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Karthikeyan , learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.K.Mahesh Raja, learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The petitioner was the President of Meelavittan Panchayat, in Tuticorin District during the period from 2006 to 2011. According to him, the third respondent made a demand for illegal gratification which the petitioner refused to comply with. It is the case of the petitioner that consequently, the third respondent lodged an F.I.R in Crime No.57 of 2011 for the alleged offences under Sections 409, 468, 420 and 477(A) I.P.C. The petitioner has already secured anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13886 of 2011 from this Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that all documents relating to the expenditure have been handed over to the third respondent and that the vouchers are with him. But, in the mean time, the petitioner wants a Special Officer to inspect all the documents and to find out the truth and submit a report to the first respondent. 5. The said prayer cannot be granted for the simple reason that the appointment of a Special Officer to scrutinize the records and to file a report on the same allegations which constitute the basis for the criminal complaint, would amount to interference with the course of investigation. Therefore, the said prayer cannot be granted. 6. However, the petitioner appears to have made a representation to the Government on 14.10.2011, on which the Government had called for a report from the District Collector, in Government Letter No.24852/PR4/2011-1, dated 24.10.2011. Therefore, all that could be done is only to direct the Government to examine the grievance of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent Government to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Tuticorin District. 2.The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9. 3.The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayats, Tuticorin District. +1cc to Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram,Advocate, Sr.No.39704 +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No. 39896 vsm ssk/07.12.2011 /6c -2p/- W.P.(MD)NO.12642 of 2011 15.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/