LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-486

K P R ANANDHAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI; BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THIRUMANGALAM PANCHAYAT UNION; PRESIDENT, A KOKKULAM VILLAGE PANCHAYAT; MAYAN, PRESIDENT; P MADHUMITHA; R SUGANYA; M MALAYALAM; U SATHAYA; V ANNAKODI; P VELMURAGAN; A DHARMAN; G SABARIS BABU; P CHELL

Decided On April 05, 2016
K P R ANANDHAN Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI; BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THIRUMANGALAM PANCHAYAT UNION; PRESIDENT, A KOKKULAM VILLAGE PANCHAYAT; MAYAN, PRESIDENT; P MADHUMITHA; R SUGANYA; M MALAYALAM; U SATHAYA; V ANNAKODI; P VELMURAGAN; A DHARMAN; G SABARIS BABU; P CHELLAPANDI; G LAVANYA; R BALAMURUGAN; P PETCHIAMMAL; P MAHARAJAN; S SEMMALAR; L Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Even as per the admission made by the petitioner in his affidavit, he has moved this court a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.16760 of 2014 and on his request, the same was dismissed on 14.10.2014. According to the petitioner, the matter was dismissed on the ground that it projected private interest, but he was given liberty to file a fresh writ petition for individual grievance. As per the order dated 14.10.2014, a Division Bench of this court had only passed the following order:

(3.) We are unable to see that the order passed by the Division Bench is in any way supports the contention raised by the petitioner except that he had been given liberty to file a fresh writ petition. The only difference was that earlier his relief was for a direction to the Panchayat to conduct public auction in accordance with the T.N.Panchayat (Procedure for conducting Public Auction of Lease and Sales in Panchayat) Rules, 2001 and to look into the large scale scam. The present prayer is to set aside the allotment of shops in favour of the private respondents. After moving the Division Bench, the petitioner filed the present writ petition not as a public interest litigation, but only in his individual capacity. When the matter came up for admission on 16.10.2014, i.e. within 2 days after the disposal of the earlier writ petition, it was admitted by a learned Judge on 16.10.2014 and on the same day, an order to maintain status quo till 10.11.2014 was passed. On 10.11.2014, the order was extended upto 1.12.2014. On 1.12.2014, it was further extended and again on 5.12.2014 it was extended for a period of four weeks.