Madras High Court
R.Thangaraja vs The Pr. Director (Is & It Audit) on 9 July, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.11450 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.P.(MD)No.11450 of 2021
R.Thangaraja,
President,
Mass Education and Action for
Rural Development Society,
12-2-18A1, Venkateswara Bhavan,
Pandian Nagar,
Kariapatti – 626 106,
Virudhunagar District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Pr. Director (IS & IT Audit),
O/o. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India,
Pocket – 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi – 110 124.
2.The Chief General Manager,
National Bank for Agriculture &
Rural Development (NABARD),
Tamil Nadu Regional Office,
48, Mahatma Regional Office,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P.(MD)No.11450 of 2021
Post Box No.6074,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
3.The Reserve Bank of India,
Fort Glacis, Rajaji Salai,
P.B.No.40, Chennai – 600 001.
4.The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
5.The Secretary (TWD),
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 0009.
6.The Chief Engineer Design Research
and Construction Support,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.
7.The Chief Engineer,
PWD, WRO,
Madurai Region,
Madurai.
8.The Superintendent of Engineer (W.R.O),
Vaippar Region Circle,
Virudhunagar. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/8
W.P.(MD)No.11450 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the
7th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated
07.06.2021 for taking decision for Review of the Completion Report
dated 31.03.2005 submitted by the 7th respondent of Nilaiyur
Extention Irrigation Chennai to Kambikudi as per G.O.Ms.Nos.348
PWD (P1) Department dated 29.06.1999, the judgment of this
Court in W.P.No.16127 of 2003 dated 28.03.2013 and in the light of
the order No.DR & CS /W2/1696/2001 dated 28.02.2001 of the 6th
respondent within a stipulated period of time.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Muniasamy
For Respondent 1 : Mr.S.Jeyasingh
Central Government Standing Counsel
For Respondent 4 to 8 : Mr.Veerakathirvan
Senior Standing Counsel for Government
For Mr.A.K.Manickam,
Standing Counsel for Government
ORDER
************
[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
With the consent on either side, the Writ Petition itself is
taken up for final disposal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11450 of 2021
2.Heard Mr.V.Muniasamy, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.S.Jeyasingh, learned Central Government Standing
Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Veerakathirvan,
learned Senior Standing Counsel for Government, assisted by
Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for Government
appearing for respondents 4 to 8.
3.The petitioner is the President of the NGO and has filed this
writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation and seeks for
reviewing the completion report submitted by the Public Works
Department, carrying out certain works for development of
irrigation channel. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is the
Secretary of the NGO, who had filed earlier writ petition and
appeared in person in W.P.(MD)No.11926 of 2012, which was
dismissed on 07.09.2016. The present writ petition is by the
President of the very same NGO and represented by
Mr.V.Muniasamy, learned Counsel who was the petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.11926 of 2012.
4.On going through the affidavit filed in support of this
petition as well as the representation given, we find that
substantial part of the representation is finding fault with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11450 of 2021
respondents in not paying the Advocate Commissioner fees and
stating that the Court ought not to have disposed of the writ
petition without taking note of the prayer for appointment of
Advocate Commissioner. Unfortunately, we cannot issue any
direction nor the Chief Engineer, can do anything as they have
already given the information under the Right to Information Act to
the learned Counsel Mr.V.Muniasamy, by reply dated 16.06.2021.
Thus, on the given facts, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
However, if the claim made by the NGO is a genuine claim, then the
representation should contain all technical and factual informations
without complaining the Court or authorities in the earlier round of
litigation. With such facts and technical details, we give liberty to
the NGO to approach the concerned authorities by way of a fresh
representation.
5.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
09.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11450 of 2021
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Pr. Director (IS & IT Audit),
O/o. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India,
Pocket – 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi – 110 124.
2.The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Secretary (TWD),
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 0009.
4.The Chief Engineer Design Research
and Construction Support,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11450 of 2021
5.The Chief Engineer,
PWD, WRO,
Madurai Region,
Madurai.
6.The Superintendent of Engineer (W.R.O),
Vaippar Region Circle,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11450 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM., J.
and
S.ANANTHI., J.
MR
ORDER MADE IN
W.P.(MD)No.11450 of 2021
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
