BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 02/02/2026 CORAM The Hon`ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY A.Ramamuthuverannan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Director, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, No.326, Avvai Shanmugham Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai District..

2. Thanjavur West Sarvodhaya Sangam,, Rep by its Secretary, No.28, Giri Road, Srinivasapuram, Thanajvur District.. ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 29.12.2025 and to appoint a Special Officer for the 2^nd respondent Sangam for the benefit and better administration of the said Sangam till the disposal of civil suits regarding election dispute between two groups.

For Petitioner : M/s.L.Jeen Felix For Respondents : Mr.A.Oliraja for R1 Government Advocate

ORDER

The writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the 1^st respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 29.12.2025 and to appoint a Special Officer for the 2^nd respondent Sangam for the benefit and better administration of the said Sangam till the disposal of civil suits regarding election dispute between two groups.

2. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the official respondent. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the

2^nd respondent, notice is dispensed with.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working in one of the shops under the 2^nd respondent Sangam as Assistant. He would further submit that due to election disputes between two groups, the employees have not received their benefits and EPF amounts deducted from employees have not been remitted for the past 16 months and LIC premiums have also not been deducted. Since the employees of the Board were put to hardships, the petitioner is before this Court for appointment of Special Officer for the

2^nd respondent Sangam.

4. The learned Government Advocate for the first respondent would submit that even in the absence of elected body, the entire administration falls under the first respondent, under whom the entire organisation is functioning. As far as the elected body is concerned, they would take a policy decision. When the first respondent is very much available to look after the affairs of the Board, the petitioner can approach the first respondent. Instead of approaching the first respondent, the petitioner has straight away approached this court by invoking the writ jurisdiction and hence, prays for dismissal.

5. I have considered the said submissions and perused the materials available on record.

6. The petitioner is an Assistant working under the 2^nd respondent Sangam. It is not known how the petitioner has collected the information with regard to non payment of interest and as to the other allegations levelled against the Sangam in the affidavit. When the first respondent is the head of the organisation and he is very much available, the petitioner, without performing his statutory work and without approaching the first respondent, has approached this Court straight away for the aforesaid relief by invoking the writ jurisdiction. When the informations furnished in the affidavit are beyond the reach of the petitioner and when the first respondent is very much available, the petitioner has to approach the first respondent. The prayer that has been sought by the petitioner is not within his purview and instead of doing his work, the petitioner is interfering with the administration and functions of the organisation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition, the first respondent is directed to take appropriate action against the petitioner, who acted beyond the scope of his work as Assistant.