1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 14.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P(MD)No.2502 of 2011 And M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 S.Nagajothi .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kallikudi, Madurai District. 3.L.Meena Bai .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to take necessary action against the 3rd respondent and recover the misappropriate amount from her on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 27.10.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Thiruppathi For Respondents (R1 & R2) : Mr.N.Elango, Govt.Advocate O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to take necessary action against the 3rd respondent and recover the misappropriate amount from her on the basis of his representation dated 27.10.2010. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that he was elected as Panchayat President of Odaipatti Village in the year 2006. In the year 2010-11, the Government of Tamil Nadu started an Elementary School in his Village. The first respondent instructed him to constitute a Village Education Committee and as per his instruction, the Village Education Committee was formed. The petitioner is the president of the said committee. When the members of the committee supervise the accounts maintained by the 3rd respondent they found that certain misappropriation was made by the 3rd respondent. Hence, the petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the 3rd respondent. Since no action was taken by them, the present writ petition has been filed for the relief stated earlier. 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.In view of the limited order to be passed hereunder, I am not ordering notice to the 3rd respondent. 5.in pursuant to the representation of the petitioner, the first respondent has already directed the second respondent to enquire into the matter. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the representation of the petitioner was already acted upon. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that there need be no direction either to the first respondent or the second respondent. The second respondent is at liberty to enquire into the matter as was directed by the first respondent after hearing all the parties. 6.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR MPK To 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kallikudi, Madurai District. 1CC TO MR. T. VADIVELAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 6367: 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 6550: DM:2011::MARCH:30::: ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.2502 of 2011 14.03.2011 2P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/