BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition(MD)No.12005 of 2011 R.Pandi :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Inspector of Panchayat/The District Collector, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Office of the District Collector,Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The Block Development Officer,(Village Panchayat) Thirupparankundram Panchayat Union, Thirupparankundram,Madurai District. 4.The Superintendent of Police (Crime),Madurai-20. :Respondents PRAYER:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned order dated 10.10.2011 made in Na.Ka.No.3019/2011/T1, passed by the 3r respondent namely, the Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Thirupparankundram, Madurai District and quash the same and consequently further direct the respondents 2 and 3 to scrutinize the vouchers and cash book submitted earlier by the petitioner forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham For Respondents 1,2&4: Mr.B.Pugalendhi,Special Government Pleader. For 3rd Respondent : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar,Government Advocate. ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging a communication sent by the Block Development Officer, (Commissioner of Thirupparankundram Panchayat) to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Crime Branch), Madurai, requesting him to register a complaint of misappropriation against the petitioner who is the President of Thanakkankulam Village Panchayat. 2.Heard Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the third respondent. 3.The impugned proceedings is only an internal communication between the third respondent and the fourth respondent. It is just a request by the Commissioner of Panchayat Union to the Superintendent of Police to register a case of misappropriation against the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be challenged in a writ petition. 4.At the worst, the petitioner may be entitled to challenge an First Information Report, if registered by the fourth respondent. Even before that the petitioner has no locus standi to come up with the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Inspector of Panchayat/The District Collector,Madurai. 2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Office of the District Collector, Madurai District,Madurai. 3.The Block Development Officer,(Village Panchayat) Thirupparankundram Panchayat Union, Thirupparankundram, Madurai District. 4.The Superintendent of Police (Crime), Madurai-20. RP/04.11.2011/1P/5C. Writ Petition(MD)No.12005 of 2011 . https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/