Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

B.Arulpragasam vs The Secretary To Government on 4 February, 2019

Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad

                                                           1



                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 04.02.2019

                                                         CORAM:

                                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
                                                      AND
                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

                                                   WP.No.3282 of 2019

                      B.Arulpragasam                                    ...   Petitioner
                                                          vs.

                      1. The Secretary to Government,
                      Rural Development and
                      Local Administration Department,
                      Secretariat.
                      Chennai - 600 009.

                      2. The District Collector,
                      Villupuram.

                      3. The Assistant Director,
                      Villupuram District.

                      4. The Block Development Officer,
                      The Panchayath Office,
                      Kalinjukuppam Panchayath,
                      Kandamangalam Union,
                      Villupuram District.

                      5. The Panchayath Office,
                      Kalinjukuppam Panchayath,
                      Kandamangalam Union,
                      Villupuram District.

                      6.Valarmathi
                      7.Nataraj                                         ... Respondents

http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                2

                      WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
                      for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent herein
                      to consider petitioner's representation dated 25.01.2018.


                                     For Petitioner        : Mr.K.Sudhakar

                                     For Respondents       : Mr.E.Manoharan, (For R1 to R3)
                                                             Additional Government Pleader

                                                             Mr.Akhil Akbarali (for R4 & R5)
                                                             Government Advocate

                                                             ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J) Instant writ petition is for a writ of mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent i.e. Assistant Director, Villupuram District, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.01.2018.

2. The petitioner claims himself to be a Public Interest Litigant. He contends that the State of Tamil Nadu introduced a Scheme viz., CM's Solar Powered Green House Scheme. The Scheme reads as under:

"2.1 Salient features of the Scheme • All the people living below poverty line in rural areas are eligible for Solar Powered Green Houses.
• Each house is built with an area of 300 square feet at a unit cost of Rs.1.80 lakh fully funded by the State Government.
• Each house consists of a living room, bed room, kitchen, toilet and verandah apart from Rain Water Harvesting provision. • Each house is provided with 5 solar powered Compact Fluorescent Lamps http://www.judis.nic.in 3 (CFL), one each in bed room, living room, kitchen, toilet and verandah.

Each beneficiary is given the option to have an electric connection powered by TNEB, which will be metered.

• The unit cost is Rs.1.80 lakh per house @Rs.1.50 lakh for construction and Rs.30,000/- for Solar Powered Lights. • The RD & PR Department is entrusted with the construction of houses and Tamil Nadu Energy Development Agency (TEDA) is the implementing agency for solar lighting component.

• The Green Houses are constructed either insitu (replacing his/her existing dwelling structure) or in the land owned by the beneficiary elsewhere in the Village Panchayat. No land acquisition is envisaged under this scheme. Only people with patta for their sites are eligible under this scheme. • The supply, installation and commissioning of solar panels and lights are undertaken directly by TEDA by following established procedures in co- ordination with the Project Directors of District Rural Development Agencies. "

3. The petitioner further submits that contrary to this Scheme, houses have been allotted to Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, i.e., one Valarmathi and Nataraj. The relevant averments made in the writ petition against them are as under.

"3. I submit that contrary to same now respondents 2 to 5 had allotted the houses to 6th and 7th respondents. The green houses allotted for the year 2016-2017 in Kalinjikuppam Village, in Kandamangalam Panchayat Union is not followed guideline framed by government. The respondents 2 to 5 had selected beneficiary as their whims and fancies without following the guideline. The 2 to 5th respondent had allowed http://www.judis.nic.in green houses to 6th and 7th respondent but 6th and 7th 4 respondent had not constructed house as framed by government style. But 6th and 7th respondent old house covered with cement sheet roofing and after removing the same cement sheet roofing, in the name of green house, one small house adjacent to the existing old house was constructed under, one common terrace was put up over the constructed house joining the same with the old one. The houses intended for poor people as per government orders but contrary to same now wasting the public money.

4. I submit that with regard to same myself with other village people made complaint in person before the 4th and 5th respondent to take appropriate action and follow government guidelines but 4th and 5th respondent had not taken any action upon my complaint. Hence finally myself with other village people send the representation on 25.01.2018, to the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action upon our representation but all ended in vain. Even I send representation 21.08.2018 to 1st respondent. The respondents 1 to 3 had not taken any action against other respondents, who done against law as was as intention of scheme."

4. A perusal of the writ petition would show that action, which has been sought for, is directed against the benefits given to respondent Nos. 6 and 7. This writ petition by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a Public interest Litigation. It is directed only against two persons, who according to the petitioner, are not beneficiaries under the Scheme. The http://www.judis.nic.inPublic Interest Litigation, as framed is therefore, not maintainable. There 5 is no public element involved in the way the writ petition has been filed.

Hence, the instant writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.

(S.M.K., J.) (S.P., J.) 04.02.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes Speaking/Non speaking ars To

1. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, Secretariat.

Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector, Villupuram.

3. The Assistant Director, Villupuram District.

4. The Block Development Officer, The Panchayath Office, Kalinjukuppam Panchayath, Kandamangalam Union, Villupuram District.

5. The Panchayath Office, Kalinjukuppam Panchayath, Kandamangalam Union, Villupuram District.

http://www.judis.nic.in 6 S.MANIKUMAR,J.

AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

ars WP.No.3282 of 2019 04.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in