C.Baskaran v. The District Collector/ Inspector of Panchayats, Ramanathapuram District & Ors.

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 29.04.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMYW.P.(MD).No.5393 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011C.Baskaran : Petitioner Vs.1.The District Collector/ Inspector of Panchayats, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.2.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, Ramanathapuram.3.The Mudhal Nadu Village Panchayat, Rep by its President Tmt.Alagammal, Kamudhi Union, Ramanathapuram District. : RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the firstrespondent to take over the charge of cutting the Kattu Karuvel Treesfrom the third respondent relating to Serial No.12 in the secondrespondent's auction proceedings vide Na.Ka.No.1759/2010/Ku, dated03.09.2010 and carryout the cutting of the Kattu Karuvel Trees anddeposit the sale proceeds to the account of petitioner's Mudhal NaduVillage Panchayat, Kamudhi Union, Ramanathapuram District. For Petitioner: Mr.R.VenkateswaranFor Respondents: Mr.R.JanakiramuluSpecial Government Pleader O R D E R[Order of the Court was made BY K.SUGUNA, J]This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:-"to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the firstrespondent to take over the charge of cutting the KattuKaruvel Trees from the third respondent relating to Serial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2No.12 in the second respondent's auction proceedings videNa.Ka.No.1759/2010/Ku, dated 03.09.2010 and carryout thecutting of the Kattu Karuvel Trees and deposit the saleproceeds to the account of petitioner's Mudhal Nadu VillagePanchayat, Kamudhi Union, Ramanathapuram District."2. The gist of the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is thatthe District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, the first respondentherein, has to inspect the cutting of Karuvel Trees and for theconsequential auctions. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of MudhalNadu Village, Kamudhi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. There was aproposal to cut the Karuvela Trees, which are standing in the Kanmaiof the said village. Basing on the Government Order, on the pricefixed by the Forest Department, the said contract was given in favourof the third respondent Panchayat.4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the thirdrespondent - Panchayat President, without conducting open auction,had entrusted the work of cutting the trees to one Mari for a sum ofRs.20,00,000/- and the said amount was not deposited in the accountof the village panchayat. According to the learned counsel for thepetitioner, the said Mari is cutting the trees beyond the auctionedarea. Basing on these two grounds, the learned counsel for thepetitioner has prayed for allowing of the Writ Petition.5. We have considered the above submissions. 6. We are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition, for thereason that though a stand is taken by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the President of the said village panchayat by nameAlagammal has committed some fraud and she has not deposited theamount in the account of the village panchayat, which was received byher from the sub contractor, unfortunately, the said Alagammal is notimpleaded in her personal capacity as a party respondent to this WritPetition. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also not willingto implead the said Alagammal in her personal capacity as a partyrespondent to this Writ Petition. 7. As per the averment made in the affidavit filed in support ofthe Writ Petition, the sub contract was given to one Mari, who isalso not impleaded as a party respondent to this Writ Petition. Thereason given by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that thepetitioner is frightened to implead the said Mari. But, we are notable to accept the said stand of the learned counsel for thepetitioner. Having come before this Court with such a prayer, thereasoning of the learned counsel for the petitioner for non -impleading the said Mari, against whom certain allegations have beenlevelled by the petitioner, cannot be accepted. Consequently, on theground of non – jointer of necessary party, the relief sought for by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3the petitioner cannot be granted. 8. Apart from the above, according to the learned counsel for thepetitioner, only four days before, the said contract has been givento the said Mari and the representation has been given to the firstrespondent on 27.04.2011. The Writ Petition has been filed on28.04.2011. Having made a representation to the District Collector on27.04.2011, in our considered opinion that at least a breathing timeshould have been given to him to consider the representation dated27.04.2011 submitted by the petitioner and pass orders. However, thevery next day, i.e., on 28.04.2011, the present Writ Petition hasbeen filed.9. Yet another stand taken by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that the said Mari is cutting trees beyond theauctioned areas. In support of his contention, no particulars areproduced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Here is a case,where the third respondent panchayat was given the contract by theForest Department. If cutting of trees is done beyond the auctionedarea, it is for the Forest Department to take action as against theconcerned individual. But, the petitioner has not made anyrepresentation to the Forest Department and no such representation isenclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner. Undersuch circumstances, the stand of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the said Mari is cutting the trees beyond theauctioned areas cannot be accepted.10. Apart from the above, having taken contract for a sum ofRs.2,00,000/- and if the President, under sub - contract, is able toget income of Rs.20,00,000/- to the panchayat, certainly, in ouropinion, it is the profit earning process. Consequently, the argumentof the learned counsel for the petitioner that the President hasgiven sub - contract illegally to the third party cannot be accepted.Apart from this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has notproduced any specific particulars with regard to the date on whichthe sub - contract was given to the private individual. Consequently,we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.11. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, ifactually sub - contract has been given with regard to the cutting oftrees and if they cut the trees beyond the auctioned areas, theDistrict Collector is directed to ascertain the same and takeappropriate action and also directed to ascertain as to whether theamount has been deposited as per the Rules and Regulations. No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/ Deputy Registrar (LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4To1.The District Collector/ Inspector of Panchayats, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.2.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, Ramanathapuram.3. Tmt.Alagammal, President, The Mudhal Nadu Village Panchayat, Kamudhi Union, Ramanathapuram District.+1cc to Mr.R.Venkateswaran, Advocate, Sr.No.15974+one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 16356ORDER MADE INW.P.(MD).No.5393 of 201129.04.2011NBSMA/14.06.2011/6C/4P