Ayyasamy @ Sadaikutti vs. The District Collector

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 (District Collector, Assistant Director of Village Panchayat, and Block Development Officer) to initiate legal action, including criminal prosecution, against respondents 4 to 6 (Village Panchayat President and others) for alleged misappropriation of village panchayat public funds. The petitioner alleged that funds allocated for digging bore wells, connecting pipelines, and establishing Sintex tanks in Adi-Diravidar Colony, Mathur Village, were not utilized for the intended purpose. The Court directed the District Collector to inspect the village and file a report. The report detailed the expenditure on a metal road and bore wells with Sintex tanks, noting that while payments were made, including for GST, and work orders were issued, there were incorrect entries in the e-gramswaraj website which caused confusion. The report concluded that the allegations of misappropriation appeared false, with no irregularities found other than the website entry errors.

Held

The Court held that the allegations of misappropriation of village panchayat funds by the respondents 4 to 6 appeared to be false. This finding was based on the detailed report submitted by the District Collector, who conducted an inspection of the village. The report indicated that administrative sanctions were accorded, tenders were floated, work orders were issued to the lowest bidder, and payments were released after thorough scrutiny of completion reports and statements. While the report acknowledged incorrect entries in the e-gramswaraj website, causing confusion, it explicitly stated that the metal road was formed and bore wells with Sintex water tanks were provided as per the project requirements. The Court found no valid ground for entertaining the writ petition, deeming it to be filed under the guise of Public Interest Litigation without sufficient substantiation. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents 1 to 3 are legally obligated to initiate criminal prosecution against respondents 4 to 6 for alleged misappropriation of village panchayat funds, as per the petitioner's representation dated 29.11.2022, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the allegations of misappropriation of village panchayat funds for the construction of a metal road and provision of bore wells with Sintex tanks in Mathur Village, as detailed in vouchers XVFC/2021-22/P/8, XVFC/2021-22/P/9, XVFC/2021-22/P/11, and XVFC/2021-22/P/12, are substantiated? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that public funds allocated for specific development works, including bore wells and metal roads, were not utilized for their intended purpose, indicating misappropriation. The petitioner sought a direction for criminal prosecution against the responsible officers. Respondents' Arguments (as reflected in the District Collector's report): The respondents, through the District Collector's report, argued that administrative sanctions were obtained, tenders were floated, work orders were issued, and payments were made after scrutiny. The report indicated that the works were completed, and the alleged misappropriation was due to incorrect data entry on the e-gramswaraj website, not actual diversion of funds. The report found the petitioner's allegations to be false.