IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:22.3.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.6800 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 P.Rajkumar. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Villupuram District. 2.The Block Development Officer, Chinnasalem Union, Chinnasalem, Villupuram District. 3.Mr.Mani, The President, Earvaipattinam Panchayat, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. ... Respondents 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 appropriate action against the third respondent for misappropriation of the Panchayat funds as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated 2.2.2011. For Petitioner : M/s.A.B.Fathima Sulthana, N.Subramani and K.Sivaprakash For Respondents : Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, Government Advocate. O R D E R Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take appropriate action against the third respondent for misappropriation of the Panchayat funds as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated 2.2.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. The writ petition is totally misconceived. Petitioner has grievance against the third respondent, the President of Earvaipattinam Panchayat, and has given complaints dated 2.11.2009 12.2.2010 and 26.2.2010. He also filed a Writ Petition No.7306 of 2010 for a direction to consider the said complaints. This Court by order dated 9.4.2010 directed the District Collector to hear the Petitioner and take appropriate action if warranted in accordance with law. In order to know as to what had happened thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act on 24.1.2011 seeking status report. In response to the same on 2.2.2011, a reply was given by the Information Officer that enquiry has been conducted and action has been initiated as per law. The details of the enquiry and the action taken has also been furnished in the letter dated 2.2.2011. 4. Based on the letter dated 2.2.2011 given in response to the query under the Right to Information Act, the present writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to direct the first respondent to take further action against the third respondent, consequent to letter dated 2.2.2011 (i.e.) the reply of Information Officer. When the grievance of the petitioner has already been addressed and the action has been taken by the first respondent as is revealed by the letter dated 2.2.2011, it will be travesty of justice to force the District Collector to hurry the proceedings in the manner the petitioner wants. This may cause miscarriage of justice to the opposite party and that cannot be done by way of the present writ petition, the second in line. 5. The Court should not be used as a tool to harass one or other person in this manner. When it is apparent on the face of records that the District Collector has taken appropriate action and the proceedings have been initiated and details of the action taken has also been set out in the reply given by the Information Officer, the petitioner cannot initiate the proceedings with no just or reasonable cause. In any event, a mandamus to take action based on the letter of the Information Officer is not maintainable as it is a reply to the petitioner's letter. It does not create any right. Petitioner is knocking the doors of the Court without any justification. There is no material to show that the respondents authorities have shirked their duty or have failed to take necessary action. 6. In view of the above, the second writ petition filed for the very same relief, but differently pleaded is not justified and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Considering the plea made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was under the bona fide misapprehension that further action will be taken only based on Court order, has made him to file the second writ petition and petitioner's action may be viewed leniently in this regard, the Court is not inclined to impose cost this time. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1.The District Collector, Villupuram District. 2.The Block Development Officer, Chinnasalem Union, Chinnasalem, Villupuram District. 1 cc To Mr.N.Subramani, Advocate, SR.20176 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.20727 W.P.No.6800 of 2011 vsv(co) pmk.8.4.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/