Udhayakumar.V vs. The Inspector Of Panchayat / District Collector

Facts

The petitioner, V. Udhayakumar, filed a representation on December 31, 2020, alleging misappropriation of funds in the Andiyenthal Panchayat from 2016 onwards. This led to a Public Interest Litigation (W.P.(MD) No.8102/2021), where the High Court directed the District Collector, Virudhunagar, to examine the complaint. Following an inquiry, the District Collector, through a communication dated May 20, 2022, informed the petitioner that the enquiry found no irregularities and deemed the complaint frivolous. The communication also noted that social auditing regarding MGNREGA scheme allegations was ongoing. Aggrieved by this communication, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order and direct action against the alleged misappropriation by respondents 5 and 6.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was attempting to conduct a "fishing enquiry" in the guise of a public interest litigation to discover if an offence had been committed, which is not permissible. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Secretary, Minor Irrigation v. Sahangoo Ram Arya [(2002) 5 SCC 521] to support this view. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner had a pattern of making allegations against law officers concerning their fees and was interfering in the affairs of a village from a distant location, suggesting an intent to harass locals. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned communication dated 20.05.2022 that would warrant interference. The petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to an old age home.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned communication dated 20.05.2022, which found no irregularities in the Andiyenthal Panchayat funds, is arbitrary and warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that there were specific instances of financial misappropriation, including purchases of disinfectants and equipment without proper payment and without GST. He contended that records indicated financial irregularities and sought to bring these to the court's attention. The petitioner aimed to initiate action against the alleged misappropriation. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, argued that the petitioner was attempting a "fishing enquiry" to discover if an offence had been committed, which is impermissible in a public interest litigation, citing the Supreme Court decision in Secretary, Minor Irrigation v. Sahangoo Ram Arya [(2002) 5 SCC 521]. Furthermore, it was brought to the court's notice that the petitioner had a history of making allegations against law officers regarding their legitimate fees and was questioning village affairs from a distant location (Namakkal) primarily to harass locals.