BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR A.Kalaimani ...Petitioner Vs.

1.The Union of India, Rep.by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, New Delhi.

2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005.

3.The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC)

No.293, N.K.N.Road, Alandur, Chennai 600 016.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Southern Range, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, No.293, N.K.N.Road, Alandur, Chennai 600 016.

5.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Tirunelveli Division, NGO, 'B' Colony Extension, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli 627 007.

6.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Tenkasi Division, Tenkasi District.

7.R.Subramanian

8.R.Muppidathi

9.R.Veeramani

10.M.Thirumalai Ammal

11.R.Eswaran

12.R.Kottimuthu

13.C.Sujeeth Mukesh

14.P.Muthulakshmi

15.R.Kottiyappan

16.S.Karuppasamy

17.B.Karuppasamy ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 3 and 4 to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint, dated 13.08.2025 and to register the complaint and investigate the same and file final report in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Murugapandi, For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, Senior Standing Counsel, for R1.

: Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

for R3 & R4

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint, dated 13.08.2025 and to register the complaint and investigate the same and file final report. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the Union of India implemented the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), which is credit linked subsidy scheme to facilitate access to affordable housing for the low and moderate income residents; that the scheme was subsequently extended to cover all below poverty line population; that the petitioner came to know that the respondents 7 to 17 have misused the object of the scheme and receiving the subsidy from the fourth respondent and the petitioner sought for an information from the Public Information Officer/5^th respondent and received the report, wherein it was informed that the annual income of the beneficiary cannot exceed Rs.3 lakhs; that since the respondents 7 to 17 misused the scheme, the petitioner was forced to send a petition to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption/3^rd respondent on 23.04.2024; that the petitioner's earlier petition in W.P.(MD)No.7107 of 2025, directing the respondents 2 to 5 and the District Collector to take appropriate action against the respondents 7 to 17 for being misused and swindling the subsidy amount, which were disbursed to them under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) scheme, was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a criminal case, if necessary and that since the respondents 3 and 4 have not taken any action, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court.

3. Even in the earlier order passed in W.P(MD)No.7107 of 2025, this Court directed the petitioner to proceed with the criminal remedy. Even according to the petitioner, the complaint was forwarded to the second respondent and since there was no action, he has filed the above petition.

4. A cursory perusal of the averments in the writ petition would only reveal that the writ petitioner has been indirectly seeking registration of criminal case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 has held, “24. Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law, it needs to be reiterated that the learned Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not