D SANTHANAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR THENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issues arising in the writ petitions are common and the reliefs sought for therein are of a similar nature, a common order is passed in the above writ petitions.

(2.) IT has been stated that as per the Government orders, whenever various amounts are allotted to the Municipalities, the works have to be allotted, equally, to all the wards, without considering the party affiliation of the concerned councillors. However, the Commissioner of the Municipality, the second respondent in the writ petitions, had allotted the funds only to the councillors belonging to the ruling party. Only certain works were being allotted by calling for tenders. Accordingly, the Periyakulam Municipality had called for tenders, during the year, 2007. Even thereafter, funds were being allotted only to the councillors affiliated to the ruling party. Thereafter, the petitioners have been protesting against the arbitrary way of functioning of the second respondent. In such circumstances, the second respondent had given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Thenkarai Police station, Periyakulam, as if the petitioners had attempted to enter into the manager's room and had taken away the tender applications and the tender box.

(3.) IT has been further stated that the Inspector of Police, Thenkarai, periyakulam, had registered a case under Section 461 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss)Act, 1992. The said case had been tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, periyakulam. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Periyakulam, without analysing the matter in its proper perspective, had, erroneously, imposed a sentence on the petitioners, on 28. 10. 2009, under Section 461 of the Indian Penal Code, imposing a punishment of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. Further, under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and loss) Act, 1992, they were imposed a punishment of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. Hence, the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni, along with a separate petition, to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioners, pending disposal of the appeal.