The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on a ward member of Kalukarkadai village panchayat in Sivaganga district for alleging that the president (in-charge) of the village panchayat misappropriated funds without executing the allotted work. However, the amount had been remitted.

The court was hearing a petition filed by P. Mohamed Sherif. He had lodged a complaint before the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption that the vice-president, the in-charge president of village panchayat, misappropriated a sum of ₹95,550 without executing the allotted work. The petitioner said the DVAC had not acted on his complaint.

Justice B. Pugalendhi took into account that a sum of ₹95,550 was allotted for construction of food grains godown in the village. The allotted fund was transferred directly to the beneficiaries under MGNREGS scheme and preliminary works such as cleaning and digging of the basement had been carried out in the proposed place. Thereafter, an objection was raised by the petitioner that the proposed place for the construction of the godown was classified as a road, as per the revenue records.

The Block Development Officer visited the place and confirmed that the proposed place was classified as a road. Thereafter it was recommended not to proceed with the work. The allotted amount was remitted. However, the petitioner had lodged a complaint without even verifying whether the allotted amount had been remitted back or not, the court said.

The petitioner was projecting as if the amount which had been allotted for the construction of the food grains godown had been misappropriated by the village president without executing the work, the court said.

The court dismissed the petition on the ground that the complaint had been lodged in an irresponsible manner. The court imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the petitioner out of which the petitioner had to pay a sum of ₹10,000 to Revathi, the in-charge president and a sum of ₹10,000 to the Inspector of DVAC, Sivaganga. The amount paid by the petitioner should be utilised for the welfare activities of the respective departments, the court said.