Madras High Court Administrative and Public Law Constitutional Law

Alleged MGNREGS Fund Misuse: Madras HC Gives Ranipet Officials 8 Weeks To Consider Complaint Against Panchayat Secretary After Notice to Him

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided October 26, 2026Published 27 October 2026 at 3:41 pm IST1 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

1. Whether respondents 3 and 4 should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 23 September 2022 concerning the alleged irregularities.

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition without deciding the merits and directed respondents 3 and 4 to consider the representation dated 23 September 2022, after giving due notice to the fifth respondent, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioner alleged that the fifth respondent, the Ochalam Panchayat Secretary, had committed irregularities in disbursing MGNREGS funds and misappropriated amounts.

p. 2 · ¶ 2–3

The petitioner sought consideration of his representation dated 23 September 2022 and disciplinary action.

p. 2 · ¶ 2–3

The Government Advocate denied the allegations but submitted that respondents 3 and 4 would consider the representation on its merits and in accordance with law.

p. 2 · ¶ 2–3

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether respondents 3 and 4 should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 23 September 2022 concerning the alleged irregularities.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 1–4

ii.2. Whether that consideration should take place after notice to the fifth respondent and within a specified period.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

03Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek a writ of mandamus.

p. 2

The Court directed the competent officials to consider the representation on its merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the person concerned; it cited no statute, precedent, or further legal doctrine.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

04Reasoning

The Government Advocate’s submission that respondents 3 and 4 would consider the representation made it unnecessary for the Court to examine the allegations or the merits of the dispute.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3–4

The Court therefore disposed of the petition on that undertaking, while requiring notice to the fifth respondent and a decision in accordance with law.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3–4