AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Manikumar, J.—1. A resident of Kaduvetti Village, Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District, and claiming himself to a Public Interest Litigant, has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents from constructing the community hall in the vacant land, adjacent to Middle School in Kaduvetti Village.
In the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has contended that in the said Village, there is a Panchayat Union School, Kaduvetti Village, Thottiyam Taluk. The total extent of the School is 50 cents. School building is in a dilapidated condition. According to him, instead of renovating/repairing the school, the President, Kaduvetti Village Panchayat, Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy, has attempted to construct a Community Hall in the vacant land adjacent to the School and also laid foundation for his personal gain. He has further added that in future, there is a likelihood of the school being upgraded. Therefore, if the vacant space is used for construction of a Community Hall, it would be against the welfare of the school children and village. On the above pleadings, he has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, as stated supra.
At two places in the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has specifically contended that an attempt is being made to construct a Community Hall, which is contrary to the news item published on 24.11.2015, which indicates that the construction is only a Community Service Centre. From the news item, it appears that the construction of a Community Centre in the said place has been opposed and Police have apprehended two persons, which includes the petitioner herein, for preventing the public servants from discharging their duties.
When the matter came up for admission, on instruction, Mr. A.K. Bhaskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the District Collector and the Chairman of the District Rural Development Agency, Tiruchirappalli, has accorded administrative sanction in Se.Mu.A8/1201/2015, dated 22.04.2015, for construction of a Community Service Centre in Village Panchayats in Trichy District, for the year 2015-2016. He further submitted that the Panchayat Office in Kaduvetti Village, Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District was in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, the Village Panchayat passed a resolution on 29.04.2015, to pull down the dilapidated building from the said place and proposed to construct a Community Service Centre.
Accordingly, Thottiyam Block Development Officer (Panchayats), has issued orders in R.C. No. B5/2055/2015, dated 14.09.2014, to carryout work for construction of a Community Service Centre in Kaduvetti Village, Thottiyam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli at a cost of Rs. 17,00,000/- and subject to the conditions contained in the proceedings, dated 14.09.2014.
Learned Special Government Pleader has further submitted that the entire Village supported the construction of the Community Service Centre, except two persons viz., one Mr. Palanivelu and Mr. K.R. Rengasamy, the petitioner herein. When the construction activities were going on, the above said persons prevented the same and therefore, the President of Kaduvetti Panchayat has submitted a letter, dated 28.12.2015, to the Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats), Panchayat Union, Thottiyam, to take appropriate action against the above said persons. Similar letter has also been given to the Tahsildar. Responding to the request of the President of Kaduvetti Panchayat, Thottiyam Taluk, the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats), Panchayat Union, Thottiyam vide proceedings in R.C.B5./2055/2015, dated 28.12.2015, has requested the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Musiri, to take appropriate action. Village people has also given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Thottium.
Order, dated 14.09.2014 of the Thottiyam Block Development Officer (Panchayats), reads as follows:--
The letter dated 28.12.2015 of the Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats), Panchayat Union, Thottiyam to the Superintendent of Police, Musiri, reads as follows:--
The letter dated 05.01.2016, of the Block Development Officer, Thottiyam Panchayat Union, Trichy, reads as follows:--
The letter dated 28.12.2015 of the Panchayat President, Kaduvetti, Thottiak Taluk, reads as follows:--
From the materials placed before us and extracted supra, we find that the petitioner has not only mislead this Court by describing the construction as Community Hall, but alleged to have attempted to prevent the construction. Construction of Community Service Centre is a welfare measure, for the benefit of the Villages.
From the materials on record it could be deduced that huge amount has been allotted for construction of the Village Community Service Centres, at a total cost of Rs. 28,368.170 Lakhs. There is no public interest involved in this case.
It is also the submission of learned Special Government Pleader, the Panchayat Union Office building has been demolished and only in that place, the Community Service Centre has been constructed. Thus the contention of the petitioner that the construction is in a new place, adjacent to the Panchayat Union School, is also not factually correct.
Though the petitioner has contended that the Writ Petition is a Public Interest Litigation, from the materials on record considered by this Court extensively, we find that the Writ Petition is against Public Interest. Considering the conduct of the petitioner in attempting to stall a public welfare measure, and for misleading this Court by describing the construction as Community Hall, while dismissing the writ petition, we deem it fit to impose cost to the petitioner, which he as already undertaken to pay, if the Court comes to a conclusion that it is a vexatious or frivolous litigation. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner, to be paid to the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. If the above said amount is not paid by the petitioner, within the stipulated time, The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to take action against the petitioner, under the Revenue Recovery Act, for recovering the amount, as ordered by this Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.