The Honourable Mr.MARKANDEY KATJU, Chief JusticeandThe Honourable Mr v. B.G.Balu

Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order passed in W.P.No.1828 of 2004 dated 17.04.2004. For appellant ... Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel For M/s.V.Suthukar & K.S.ViswanathanFor Respondent 1 … Mr.K.MuthukumarasamyFor Respondents2 & 3 … Mr.V.Raghupathy Government PleaderJ U D G M E N TTHE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICEThis writ appeal involves an important question of law,which has arisen in many cases, and hence we are giving thisdetailed judgment.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, andhave perused the records, as well as the impugned judgment.3. The controversy in this case is regarding theinterpretation of Section 188 (3) of the Tamil Nadu PanchayatsAct, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which states:-“Subject to such general control as thevillage panchayat may exercise from time totime, all cheques for payment from VillagePanchyat Fund or other funds constitutedunder sub-section (2) shall be signed jointly by the presidentand vice-president and in the absence of thepresident or vice-president, as the case maybe, by the vice-president or the presidentand another member authorized by the villagepanchayat at a meeting in this behalf” 4. As can be seen from a perusal of Section 188(3) of theAct, all cheques for payment from the Village Panchayat Fund orother funds constituted under sub-section (2) have to be signedjointly by the President and Vice President, and in the absenceof President or Vice-President, as the case may be, by the Vice-President or President and another member authorized by thevillage panchayat at a meeting in this behalf.5. The question, which arises in this case, is that if the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ president or vice president refuses to sign a cheque, whether itshould be treated as ‘absence’ within the meaning of the word inSection 188(3) of the Act. A situation may arise where thepresident and vice-president of the village panchayat may be ofdifferent political parties or may be adversaries for otherreasons, and one of them refuses to sign a cheque of the VillagePanchayat Fund or other funds constituted under sub-section(2). 6. To deal with this situation, G.O.Ms.No. 92 dated26.3.1997 has been issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, inwhich it is stated:-“All the accounts should be jointly operatedby the President and the Vice President. Inexceptional cases, when there is adversarialrelationship between the President and theVice President, the panchayat, may, by aresolution authorize any other member otherthan the Vice President to jointly operatethe account along with the President.Provided that prior approval of theInspector of Panchayats (District Collector)will be obtained for this”7. The petitioner in W.P.No. 1828 of 2004 has alleged thathe is the Vice-President of Brammapuram Village Panchayat,Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. It is alleged by the petitionerin paragraph-3 of the affidavit that the President of theVillage Panchayat is doing several acts detrimental to theinterest of the panchayat, and he misused his power to theextent possible. The petitioner has alleged that the Presidentof the Village Panchayat got a resolution passed on 07.10.2002to the effect that the powers of the Vice-President to sign thecheque should be cancelled, and such power should be given toanother member Mr.V.Srinivasan. Pursuant to the said resolution,and the recommendation of the Block Development Officer,Katpadi, the District Collector/first respondent passed an ordercancelling the writ petitioner’s power to sign the chequesjointly with the President and granting the power toMr.V.Srinivasan. It is alleged that this order is violative ofSection 188(3) of the Act. The petitioner has alleged that therewas no delay on his part to sign the cheques. He has furtheralleged that he was available and has not been removed andhence, it cannot be said that he was absent. It is furtheralleged that the rules of natural justice were violated, as nonotice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugnedorder.8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the firstrespondent, the District Collector, Vellore, who is also the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Inspector of Panchayats, Vellore District. In dparagraph-4 ofthe counter, it is alleged that the Vice-President did not co-operate with the smooth functioning of the village panchayat andtherefore, Brammapuram Village Panchayat in its resolution dated12.09.2002 and 07.10.2002 resolved with the majority of 6members except the petitioner and one other member to change thejoint signatory power from the petitioner to the first wardmember Mr.Srinivasan. In paragraph-5 it is stated that theproceeding of the first respondent is passed on the basis of theresolution of the village panchayat dated 12.09.2002 and07.10.2002 and in tune with G.O.Ms.No.92 Rural Development (C2)Department dated 26.03.1997. It is also in tune with Section 188(3) of the Act. The petitioner filed the writ petition after thelapse of one year and two months. The order of the firstrespondent has been in effect for this period. The reason forchanging the signatory power of the Vice President was thatwhenever the cheque was given for signature to him, he wouldeither return the cheque without signing it or he used to demanda percentage to sign the cheque. It is alleged that there wasnon-cooperation on the part of the vice president in running thevillage administration. It is alleged that there was noviolation of natural justice.9. Counter-affidavit has also been filed by the secondrespondent/President of the Village Panchayat. It is alleged inparagraph-7 of the counter that the District Collector, Vellorein his capacity of Inspector of Panchayats has the power andjurisdiction to cancel the power of signing the cheque in viewof G.O.Ms.No. 92, Rural Development (C2) Department dated26.03.1997. It is alleged that the District Collector has tolook to the interest of the smooth functioning of the villagepanchayat and not the interest of the individual. It is allegedthat the District Collector, as Inspector of Panchayats, hasacted in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.92 Rural Development (C2)Department dated 26.03.1997. It is alleged that whenever acheque was taken for the signature of the Vice-President hewould either return the cheque without signing it or used todemand a percentage of money to sign the cheque. It is allegedthat the contention of the petitioner that there was no unduedelay on his part to sign the cheques is factually not correct.In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it is also alleged:-“ The petitioner refused to sign in 1).Cheque No.018486 dated 11.09.2002 for a sumof Rs.,19,180/- issued in favour of BlockDevelopment Officer, Katpadi MunicipalityUnion for receipt of cement bags for thescheme work 2). Cheque No.021492 dated01.10.2002 for a sum of Rs.6,270/- issued infavour of the Panchyat Assistant for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disbursement of salary to the panchayatemployees. 3). Cheque No. 021493 for a sumof Rs.3,928/- issued in favour ofMr.Rajagopal for maintenance of watersupply. 4). Cheque No.021494 dated02.10.2002 for a sum of Rs.500/- issued infavour of Tamilselvi towards the funeralrights of her husband as per the Governmentscheme. 5). Cheque No.021495 dated02.10.2002 for a sum of Rs.2,900/- issued infavour of Panchayat Assistant Rajagopal forthe maintenance of street light. 6). ChequeNo. 021626 for a sum of Rs.19,930/- issuedin favour of Vasu and Co. approved dealerfor supply of accessories in maintenance ofwater supply and street light. The Presidenthas not made any false allegation againstthe petitioner. The first respondent haspassed order based on the resolution of thePinhead and the report of the BlockDevelopment Officer (VP), Katpadi who is thecontrolling officer for Panchayats ofPanchayat Union, Katpadi. It is apt to pointout at this juncture that all the other sixmembers and the President fall on one sideand the petitioner and two other members isagainst the interest of the smoothfunctioning of the Village Panchayat”10. It is further alleged that the Panchayat Council ofBrammapuram Village Panchayat had resolved to authorize anothermember to sign the cheque as the per the Government order inG.O.Ms.No.92 Rural Development (C2) Department dated 26.03.1997.It is alleged that there is non co-operation of the VicePresident in the smooth functioning of the villageadministration. In paragraph-12 it is alleged that there was acompromise, but subsequently the petitioner failed to keep hiswords to cooperate with the panchayat administration by signingthe cheques as usual, and he abruptly refused to sign thecheques and hence, the second respondent passed order on07.10.2002 to know the views of the panchayat. Six ward members,and the President voted in favour of the resolution dated07.10.2002 changing the joint-signatory power of the Vice-President and empowering the first ward member to sign jointlywith the President. In paragraph-13 of the counter, it is deniedthat the petitioner was not given any notice. He was served withthe agenda for the resolutions passed on 12.09.2002 and07.10.2002. The petitioner participated in the meeting and votedagainst the resolution along with two other members. The Block https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Development Officer, Panchayat Union, Katpadi on 16.10.2002,conducted necessary enquiry. The petitioner also attended theenquiry along with the ward members. Six members gave in writingthat the petitioner is not co-operating with the President inthe administration of the panchayat, and he refused to sign thecheques and thereby there is stagnation in the administration.The Panchayat Assistant also gave in writing to that effect. Inparagraph-14 of the counter it is alleged that the petitionerwas not discharging his duties as Vice-President diligently,sincerely and in the interest of the public. 11. The learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition,allowed the same by judgment dated 17.04.2004. The view taken bythe learned single Judge was that if the Vice-President refusedto sign the cheques, then action should have been taken againsthim either under Section 203 or under Section 206 of the Act.Under Section 206, power vests with the Inspector to remove theVice-President. Section 206 states: -“(1)If in the opinion of the Inspector, thevice-president willfully omits or refuses tocarry out or disobeys any provisions of theAct, or any rule, by-law, regulation, orlawful order made or issued under this Actor abuses any power vested in him, theInspector shall by notice in writing,require the vice-president to offer within aspecified date, his explanation with respectto his cases of omission or commissionmentioned in the notice.(2) the provisions of sub-sections (2) to(13) (both inclusive) of section 205 shall,as far as my be, apply in relation to theremoval of the president by the Inspector onhis own motion.”12. Section 203 of the Act confers emergency powers on theCollector and Inspector. However, the learned single Judge wasof the view that unless the Vice-President is absent, a membercannot be authorized by the village panchayat to sign thecheque. According to the learned single Judge, refusal oromission to sign the cheque does not amount to absence of theVice-President. Such refusal can only attract Section 206 of theAct, and it does not amount to absence under Section 188(3) ofthe Act.13. In paragraph-15 of his judgment, the learned singleJudge has observed: - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “The recommendations of the committeeconstituted for rationalization of thevillage panchayat accounts, which wasaccepted in G.O.Ms.No.92, Rural Development(C.III) Department dated 26.3.1997, is alsoin tune with the principles laid down inSection 206 of the Act. Even though the saidGovernment Order empowers the panchayat toauthorize the president and another wardmember, such a resolution could be passedonly with the prior approval of theInspector of Panchayats, obtained in thisregard, as provided in the Government Orderdated 26.3.1997, which means that noresolution could be passed without the priorapproval of the Inspector of Panchayats.Hence, the statute contemplates that if theVice-President refuses to sign the chequefor the operation of the village panchayatfund, it is obligatory on the part of thepresident to seek the prior approval orpermission from the Inspector of Panchayatsto proceed with the matter. In such event,the Inspector, either exercising the powersconferred under Section 206 of the Act, seekan explanation from the vice-president as tothe refusal to sign the cheques, oralternately exercise the emergency powersvested on him under Section 203 of the Actreferred to above, and pass appropriatedirections as temporary arrangement, inorder to maintain the day to day affairs ofthe panchayat. But, in no case the presidentcan pass any resolution without the priorapproval of the Inspector of Panchayats.Reading Sections 188(3), 203 and 206 of theAct harmoniously, makes it clear that onceprior approval or permission to take actionagainst the Vice President, who refuses tosign the cheque, is sought for, a duty iscast on the Inspector of Panchayats to seekan explanation from the vice-president andpass appropriate orders. Therefore, theInspector of Panchayats, before proceedingfurther on the allegation of refusal to signthe cheque against the vice-president, hasto read the procedure contemplated underSection 206(1) of the Act, into theprocedure provided under Section 188(3), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before giving effect to any such resolution.Pending such action, the Inspector ofPanchayats is at liberty to invoke emergencypowers conferred Section 203 of the Act”14. We agree with the learned single Judge that beforegranting prior approval to the resolution of the VillagePanchayat authorizing any other member to operate the accountalong with the President, as provided by G.O.Ms.No.92, RuralDevelopment (C.III) Department dated 26.3.1997, the Inspector ofPanchayats (District Collector) has to give a notice to the VicePresident and an opportunity of hearing to him. Such hearingneed not be a personal hearing and he can only be given a showcause notice asking him to give a reply to the allegations inthe show cause notice within a reasonable period. In ouropinion, such a procedure would comply with the principles ofnatural justice, and it is not necessary that the Vice Presidentmust be allowed to appear in person along with his counsel,witnesses etc. vide M.P.Industries vs. Union of India, 1966 SC671(vide paragraph 20), Anil Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, L.I.Cof India (2003 ALJ 1744), Narain Das Jain v. C.W.T (Vol.191 ITR126) etc. As observed by the Supreme Court in Board of MiningExamination v. Ramjee, and AIR 1977 SC 965, Kumaon Mandal VikasNigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant, 2001 (1) SCC 182 naturaljustice is not an unruly horse. The rules of natural justice areflexible and are not a strait-jacket formula, vide Bar Councilof India v. High Court of Kerala, JT 2004 Supp. (1) SCC 428(paragraph-47), The M.S.F.C v. M/s. Suvarana Board Mills & Anr.,(JT 1994 (5) SC 280), Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (AIR 1985SC 1416).15. In Union of India & Anr. v. M/s. Jesus SalesCorporation, JT 1996 (3) SC 597 (vide paragraph-5), the SupremeCourt observed: -“The Courts cannot insist that under allcircumstances and under different statutoryprovisions personal hearings have to beafforded to the persons concerned. If thisprinciple of affording personal hearing isextended whenever statutory authorities arevested with the power to exercise discretionin connection with statutory appeals, itshall lead to chaotic conditions. Manystatutory appeals and applications aredisposed of by the competent authorities whohave been vested with powers to dispose ofthe same. Such authorities which shall bedeemed to be quasi-judicial authorities are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ expected to apply their judicial mind overthe grievances made by the appellants orapplicants concerned, but it cannot be heldthat before dismissing such appeals orapplications in all events the quasijudicial authorities must hear theappellants or the applicants, as the casemay be. When principles of natural justicerequire an opportunity to be heard before anadverse order is passed on any appeal orapplication, it does not in allcircumstances mean a personal hearing. Therequirement is complied with by affording anopportunity to the person concerned topresent his case before such quasi-judicialauthority who is expected to apply hisjudicial mind to the issues involved. Ofcourse, if in his own discretion if herequires the appellant or the applicant tobe heard because of special facts andcircumstances of the case, then certainly itis always open to such authority to decidethe appeal or the application afteraffording a personal hearing. But any orderpassed after taking into consideration thepoints raised in the appeal or theapplication shall not held to be invalidmerely on the ground that no personalhearing had been afforded. 16. In the present case, we are satisfied that there wasviolation of natural justice, since no notice was givenby the Collector before passing order dated 07.11.2002. Thisaverment has been specifically been made by the writ petitionerin paragraph-4 of his affidavit as well as in ground (d), butthere is no specific denial of this allegation by the Collectorin his counter affidavit. Hence this allegation must be deemedto be correct.17. It is true that a G.O or Executive Order cannotviolate a statutory provision. However, if the statute and theG.O can be read harmoniously then effort should be made by theCourt to do so. Under G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 26.03.1997, inexceptional cases, where there is adversarial relationshipbetween the President and the Vice President, the Panchayat,may, by a resolution, authorize any other member other than theVice President (or President, as the case may be) to jointlyoperate the account along with the President (or Vice-President). However, prior approval of the Inspector of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Panchayats (District Collector) has to be obtained for this. 18. The question which arises in this case is, where if theVice President (or President, as the case may be) hasadversarial relationship with the President (or Vice President)of the Panchayat, and if for ulterior motive he refuses to signthe cheque, can this be treated as his ‘absence’? 19. In other words, whether the provision in G.O.Ms.No.92dated 26.03.1997, which states that in exceptional cases wherethere is adversarial relationship between the President and theVice President, the panchayat, may, by a resolution authorizeany other member other than the Vice president (or President, asthe case may be) to jointly operate the account along with thePresident (or Vice President), is inconsistent with Section 188(3) of the Act?20. In this connection, it may be mentioned that theSupreme Court in B.R.Enterprises Vs. State of U.P (1999 (9) SCC700) (vide paragraph-81) observed: -“ It is also well settled that firstattempt should be made by the Courts touphold the charged provision and not toinvalidate it merely because one of thepossible interpretations leads to such aresult, howsoever attractive it may be.Thus, where there are two possibleinterpretations, one invalidating the lawand the other upholding, the latter shouldbe adopted”Hence, we have to see whether there can be a reasonableinterpretation, which makes G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 26.03.1997consistent with Section 188(3) of the Act. In Tamil NaduElectricity Board and Anr. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity BoardEngineers’ Association (W.A.No.1081 of 2004 delivered on28.01.2004, we have discussed the scope of judicial review ofadministrative orders in great detail. We have observed that theCourt should exercise judicial restraint and should not readilystrike down administrative orders, unless it is whollyunavoidable. The entire case law on this issue has beendiscussed in the aforesaid judgment, and we reiterate the same.21. The word ‘absence” can have several connotations. Itcan mean physical absence, but it can also mean mental absence,in the sense of showing ‘lack of attention’, vide ‘The ConciseOxford Dictionary (tenth edition’). 22. In Collins ‘Concise Dictionary’ (21st Century Edition), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the word ‘absent’ has been defined as; - 1) away or not present.2) lacking 3) inattentive. Thus, the word ‘absent’ does notmerely mean being not physically present, but it can also meanlacking or inattentive, which really means ‘mental absence’.23. In “The Chambers Dictionary (1998 Edition)”, the word‘absent’ has been defined as: -“ being away; not present; inattentive ordreamy”. The word ‘absence’ has been defined in the same dictionary asfollows: -“ state of being away or not present; wantor lack; non-existence; abstraction;inattention; sudden loss of consciousness ofwhich the sufferer is later unaware.The above definition in Chambers Dictionary would also indicatethat the word ‘absence’ does not have one single meaning.24. In “The New International Webster’s Dictionary andThesaurus” the word ‘ absence’ has been defined as follows: -“1) The state, fact, or time of not beingpresent. 2) Lack; want. 3) Mentalabstraction; lack of attention”Thus, the above definition also indicates that one can be absentin the sense of being inattentive or being mentally absentwithout being physically absent.25. In our opinion, we can give a wider meaning to the word‘absence” than mere ‘physical absence”. One word can haveseveral meanings, just as several words can have one meaning(synonyms). It all depends on the context in which it has beenused. For example, the word ‘desertion’ appearing in Section 13of the Hindu Marriage Act implies not only factum of separation,but also “animus deserendi”, vide Lachman v. Meena, (AIR 1964 SC40). There can be constructive desertion. The husband and wifemay be living together under the same roof, but the husband mayhave legally deserted her (wife) by his conduct. Similarly theword ‘absence’ is a word of wide connotation, and is notnecessarily limited to ‘physical absence’. The indifferent orobstructionist attitude of a person or avoidance can, in ouropinion, amount to absence in some situations.26. In our opinion, if the Vice President (or President, asthe case may be) by his conduct makes it impossible for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ village panchayat to function (either by neglecting his dutiesor by causing regular obstruction in the administration orotherwise) he may be said to be ‘absent’. Such interpretation ofthe word ‘absence’ in Section 188(3) would be taking a practicalview otherwise the Vice President (or President, as the case maybe) if he has adversarial relationship with the Vice President(or President as the case may be) can make it very difficult forthe Village panchayat to function by his simple act of refusingto sign cheques. Funds are often required for various purposesand if the President or Vice President refuses to sign chequesfor ulterior motives, as is the allegation in the counteraffidavit in this case, the functioning of the village panchayatmay become impossible. We are not expressing any opinion as towhether in this case, the Vice President has refused to sign forsome ulterior motives, but we are certainly of the opinion thatSection 188(3) of the Act, as well as G.O.Ms.No.92 dated26.03.1997 can be read harmoniously in the manner mentionedabove. We do not agree with the learned single Judge that if theVice President (or President, as the case may be) refuses tosign it can never be a case of ‘absence’ within the meaning ofthe word in Section 188 (3) of the Act, and the only recoursewhich can be taken to is under Section 206. It may be noted thatSection 206(2) of the Act states that before removing the VicePresident the procedure mentioned in sub-sections (2) to (13) ofSection 205 has to be complied with, and that procedure is acumbersome, time consuming one. Surely for signing every chequeit would be impracticable to resort to that procedure. If theconclusion of the learned single Judge that for refusal to signcheques action could be taken under Section 206(3) of the Actfor removal of the Vice President (or President, as the case maybe) the time bound programmes like Village Panchayat, ear-markedgrant account like Sampoorna Grama Yojgas Yojana Scheme (Foodfor work), Village Panchayat Scheme Fund Account etc. will lapseif the funds are not utilized within the time stipulated, sincethe procedure mentioned in sub-sections (2) to (13) of Section205 is very elaborate and cumbersome.27. We would however point out that before granting priorapproval it would be the duty of the Inspector of Panchayats(District Collector) to give a hearing to the Vice President or(President, as the case may be) (which need not be a personalhearing as already mentioned above), and apply his mind anddecide by a written order giving reasons as to whether in hisopinion, the Vice President (or President, as the case may be)is refusing to sign the cheque for ulterior motive, or forgenuine reasons in the interest of the village panchayat. Itwill be the duty of the Inspector of Panchayats, to decide thismatter objectively and impartially without being influenced byany extraneous pressures or considerations. If the refusal tosign the cheque is for good and genuine reasons in the interest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Village Panchayat, the Inspector should refuse approval,but if it is for extraneous considerations or is mala fide heshould grant it. 28. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinionthat G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 26.03.1997 is not violative of Section188(3) of the Act and the two can be read harmoniously as statedabove. 29. In the present case a perusal of the order of theDistrict Collector, Vellore (Inspector of Panchayats, Vellore)dated 07.11.2002 cancelling the power of the Vice President tosign the panchayat’s cheques as joint signatory, shows that theDistrict Collector has merely acted on the recommendation of theBlock Development Officer, Katpadi Panchayat Union, and he hasnot applied his mind independently to the facts of the case, andhe has not come to any independent conclusion that the refusalto sign cheques by the Vice President was mala fide or forulterior motives. The District Collector, Vellore withoutissuing notice to the petitioner appears to have mechanicallyaccepted the report of the Block Development Officer, KatpadiPanchayat Union, which in our opinion was not proper. 30. In paragraph-4 of the petitioner’s affidavit it hasbeen specifically alleged that no notice was given by theDistrict Collector before passing the impugned order, and thisallegation has not been denied by the Collector in his counteraffidavit. In our opinion, the District Collector’s order dated7.11.2002 has civil consequences, and hence it was incumbent onhim to give a show cause notice to the petitioner before passingit, which was not done. Hence, in our opinion, there wasviolation of the principles of natural justice, and the impugnedorder becomes illegal. 31. The District Collector, Vellore should have given ashow cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the VicePresident (which need not have been a personal hearing asalready stated above), and after considering the explanation andother materials submitted by the Vice President, he should haveapplied his mind independently and in a fair and impartialmanner, and should have recorded his own reasons in the order hepassed. Since that does not appear to have been done in theorder of the District Collector, Vellore dated 07.11.2002, inour opinion, the said order was rightly quashed. The matter isremanded to the District Collector, Vellore to pass a freshorder after giving an opportunity of hearing to the VicePresident and President of the Panchayat, and others concerned,and after recording his reasons. This should be done veryexpeditiously by the District Collector, Vellore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.Consequently, W.A.M.Ps are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarpv/Copy to:1. The District Collector, (Inspector of Panchayats) Vellore District, Vellore.2.The Secretary to Government The Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai - 600 009.3.The Block Development OfficerKatpadi, Panchayat Union,Katpadi.+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 3307+1cc to M/s. V.Suthakar, Advocate Sr 3217+1cc to M/s. V.Sanjeevi, Advocate Sr 3226AK (CO)km/31.1. W.A.No.1799 of 2004