R.Ravi v. The District Collector (Inspector of Panchayats) Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.12.2009CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.1847 of 2008R.Ravi.. PetitionerVs.1. The District Collector (Inspector of Panchayats) Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri.2. The Block Development Officer Harur Panchayat Union Dharmapuri District.3. Ms.Chennamal .. RespondentsPRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forissue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the recordspertaining to the order of the first respondent bearingRoc.No.541/2001/A1, dated 25.4.2007, to quash the same and to furtherdirect the first respondent to permit the petitioner to sign thecheques of Veerapanayaganpatti Village Panchayat along with the thirdrespondent in accordance with Section 188(3) of the Tamil NaduPanchayats Act.For Petitioner:Mr.V.SuthakarFor Respondents:Mr.R.Murali,Government Advocatefor 1st respondent Mr.T.SeenivasanAdditional Government Pleaderfor respondents 2 and 3ORDERThe writ petition is directed against the order of the firstrespondent, who is the Inspector of Panchayat, dated 25.4.2007, bywhich the first respondent has divested the petitioner, being theVice President of the Panchayat, of his cheque signing power andgranted the same to the First Ward Member, J.Jayashankar to signalong with the president and also for a consequential direction topermit the petitioner to sign the cheques along with the thirdrespondent/President in accordance with Section 188(3) of the TamilNadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (for brevity, "the Act"). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The petitioner was elected as a Ward Member ofVeerapanayaganpatti Village Panchayat in the election conducted on25.10.2006. The said Panchayat consists of a President, VicePresident and eight Ward Members. The petitioner was elected as VicePresident. The third respondent is the President of the Panchayatand as per Section 188(3) of the Act, the third respondent and thepetitioner are jointly entitled to operate the village panchayatfunds and according to the petitioner, he has cooperated with thethird respondent in operating the funds.3. It is stated that during the year 2007, in respect of thepurchase of spare parts for hand pumps and for maintenance of streetlights, there was some dispute between the petitioner and the thirdrespondent and therefore, the petitioner was unable to sign chequesjointly with the third respondent. The third respondent hasnominated one J.Jayashankar as third member to operate the villagepanchayat fund and sign the cheques along with the third respondentby way of a resolution dated 12.1.2007. 4. Since the first respondent, being the Inspector ofPanchayats, has proceeded to approve the resolution dated 12.1.2007,the petitioner filed W.P.No.3779 of 2007, which was disposed of on3.2.2007 by directing the first respondent to give opportunity to thepetitioner to put forth his case before deciding the question ofgranting approval to the resolution. Pursuant to the said directionof this Court, it is stated that the first respondent has conductedenquiry on 16.4.2007, in which the third respondent as well as thepetitioner and other members of the panchayat have given statements.Thereafter, on 25.4.2007, the first respondent has passed theimpugned order permitting the said J.Jayashankar as a joint signatoryto the cheques along with the third respondent.5. The said order of the first respondent is challenged by thepetitioner on various grounds, viz., that the first respondent hasnot taken into consideration the reason assigned by the petitionerfor not signing the cheques along with the third respondents; thatthe petitioner has made a representation on 24.12.2007 to cancel theresolution dated 12.1.2007 and till date the first respondent has notpassed any orders on the representation; that under Section 188(3) ofthe Act and as per the guidelines issued by the Government, the firstrespondent while passing order has to apply his mind and give reasonsand therefore, by relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench ofthis Court in Pugazhendran v. B.G.Balu, 2005 (1) CTC 545, thepetitioner challenges the said impugned order on the ground that thesame is in violation of the procedure contemplated under the Act.6. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it isthe case of the first respondent that the petitioner, being the VicePresident of the Panchayat, is a resident of Krishnagiri and has notattended any Village Panchayat Council meeting from 6.4.2007 till https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ date and therefore, the petitioner has failed to cooperate with thethird respondent as per statement submitted by all the members of theVillage Panchayat in the personal enquiry conducted by the firstrespondent on 25.4.2007. It is stated that it was in thosecircumstances, as per the guidelines issued by the Government inG.O.No.92, Rural Development (C-III) Department, dated 26.3.1997, thecheque signing power has been given to J.Jayashankar as per thenomination of the third respondent in accordance with the resolutionand it is stated that the said order is in accordance with theguidelines issued by the Government.7. Mr.V.Suthakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerwould bring to the notice of this Court about some subsequentdevelopments. It is seen that the first respondent has initiatedaction against the third respondent/President under Section 205 ofthe Act for her removal based on certain complaints of financialirregularities and therefore, it is the submission of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that the first respondent should bedirected to take a fresh stand on that. It is his further submissionthat as per Section 188(3) of the Act, the first respondent shouldhave given reasons for divesting the petitioner of his cheque signingpower.8. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learnedcounsel for the respondents that it was as per the resolution of thepanchayat only a decision was taken by the third respondent to inductthe said J.Jayashankar for jointly signing the cheques since thepetitioner has absented himself and therefore, the order is wellwithin the powers and as per the procedure contemplated under theprovisions of the Act.9. The fact that the petitioner was elected as the VicePresident of the Panchayat and that after that he has been jointlysigning the cheques with the third respondent is not in dispute. 10. Section 188 of the Act which relates to Village PanchayatFund, which includes various categories like house tax, professiontax, etc., as enumerated under Section 188(1), in sub-section (3)empowers the Vice President to jointly sign with the President allcheques for payment from the Village Panchayat Fund or other fundsconstituted under sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) enables theGovernment to issue directions to the Village Panchayat to constituteseparate funds. Sections 188(2) and 188(3) of the Act are as follows:"Section:188. Village Panchayat Fund.-(1) ***(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), the Government may direct any Village Panchayat to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ constitute separate funds to which shall be creditedsuch receipt as may be specified and such funds shall beapplied and disposed of in such manner as may beprescribed.(3) Subject to such general control as the villagepanchayat may exercise from time to time, all chequesfor payment from Village Panchayat Fund or other fundsconstituted under sub-section (2) shall be signedjointly by the president and vice-president and in theabsence of the president or vice-president, as the casemay be, by the vice-president or the president andanother member authorised by the village panchayat at ameeting in this behalf."11. It is in accordance with Section 188(2) of the Act, theGovernment has passed G.O.No.92, Rural Development (C-III)Department, dated 26.3.1997 regarding rationalisation of villagepanchayat accounts based on the report of a Committee constituted.The purpose of the said Government Order is to ensure greatertransparency and better monitoring of village panchayat transactionsand the new system of accounts has come into force from 1.4.1997.12. It is seen that a resolution was passed by the Panchayat on12.1.2007 and out of 10 members, including the President, eight haveparticipated. It was in that meeting of the panchayat, theresolution was passed divesting the petitioner of his cheque signingpower and permitting the Ward Member, J.Jayashankar to sign chequesalong with the third respondent/President in the place of thepetitioner, since the petitioner is stated to have not cooperated.13. It is also seen that the petitioner has made a complaint tothe first respondent on 22.1.2007 making certain allegations againstthe third respondent, who has acted in collusion with a RevenueAssistant, P.Jai Shankar. 14. When the petitioner has earlier approached this Court byfiling W.P.No.3779 of 2007 to forbear the first respondent/DistrictCollector from approving the resolution of the village panchayatdated 12.1.2007, the writ petition was disposed by order dated3.2.2007 with the following direction:"4. The Division Bench of this Court has held inPugazhendran v. B.G.Balu (2005 (1) CTC 545), that theDistrict Collector (Inspector of Panchayats) is dutybound to give a hearing to the Vice President beforedeciding whether the Vice President was refusing to signany cheque. In the light of the above ratio laid downby the Division Bench of this Court, it is needless topoint out that the first respondent shall give an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opportunity to the petitioner before granting approvalto the resolution passed by the Panchayat on 12.1.2007.5. Under such circumstances, this writ petition isdisposed of directing the first respondent to give anopportunity to the petitioner before deciding thequestion of granting approval to the resolution of thepanchayat dated 12.1.2007, No costs. Consequently,connected MP is closed."15. It was thereafter, admittedly, the first respondent hasconducted an enquiry and he has given opportunity to the petitioneras well as the third respondent and other members. Pursuant to thesaid enquiry, the first respondent has passed the impugned order byrelying upon the resolution of the Panchayat dated 12.1.2007 and thestatements stated to have been given by various persons, includingthe petitioner and due to the reason that during summer seasoncertain activities are to be done, has passed the order directing thefirst Ward Member, J.Jayashankar to jointly sign the cheques alongwith the third respondent.16. While considering the said Section 188(3) of the Act, aDivision Bench of this Court in Pugazhendran v. B.G.Balu, 2005 (1)CTC 545 has held that before granting approval the Inspector ofPanchayats should give a hearing to the President or Vice Presidentand pass orders by giving reasons. The Division Bench has held asfollows:"27. We would however point out that before grantingprior approval it would be the duty of the Inspector ofPanchayats (District Collector) to give a hearing to theVice President or (President, as the case may be) (whichneed not be a personal hearing as already mentionedabove), and apply his mind and decide by a written ordergiving reasons as to whether in his opinion, the VicePresident (or President, as the case may be) is refusingto sign the cheque for ulterior motive, or for genuinereasons in the interest of the village panchayat. Itwill be the duty of the Inspector of Panchayats, todecide this matter objectively and impartially withoutbeing influenced by any extraneous pressures orconsiderations. If the refusal to sign the cheque is forgood and genuine reasons in the interest of the VillagePanchayat, the Inspector should refuse approval, but ifit is for extraneous considerations or is mala fide heshould grant it."17. That was also followed in R.Thalaiman v. Inspector ofPanchayats-cum-District Collector, Karur District, Karur and others,[2009] 5 MLJ 555 holding that while divesting the President or Vice https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ President of his powers of signing the cheques under Section 188(3)of the Act, the procedure as contemplated under Section 206 of theAct has to be followed. In the said decision, it was held as follows:"16. When there is a provision to remove the VicePresident on account of his refusal to carry out any ofthe functions of the Vice President or due to disobeyingthe provisions of the Panchayat Act or on allegation ofabuse of his powers as the Vice President, with noticeto him, the said procedure has to be substantiallycomplied with, while divesting the Vice President of hispowers to sign the cheque as conferred on him underSection 188(3) of the Act.17. The power of the Vice President to sign the chequeis a statutory power conferred on him under Section 188(3) of the Act. Such a power cannot be taken away byway of an executive act. Therefore, while taking actionto divest the Vice President of his powers to sign thecheque, the procedure as contemplated under Section 206of the Act, has to be complied with. The orderdivesting the Vice President of his powers to sign thecheque jointly with the President involves civilconsequence to him and his administrative powers wouldbe taken away on account of such orders.18. Even though the Panchayat was within its powers toauthorise any other member other than the Vice Presidentto operate the account jointly with the President, whenthere was adversarial relationship between the Presidentand the Vice President, the prior approval of theInspector of Panchayat was mandatory. The idea behindgranting such power to the panchayat to tide other thedifficulty caused on account of the strainedrelationship between the President and the VicePresident and for a smooth administration of thepanchayat. The Collector, being the Inspector ofPanchayat, was given the powers to consider theresolution passed by the panchayat in the matter ofdivesting the cheque signing powers of the VicePresident and entrusting such powers to a member ofpanchayat. Therefore, the District Collector has got asay in the matter. The grant of prior approval is notan empty formality."18. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, it isnot in dispute that the first respondent has given personal hearingto the petitioner as well as the third respondent and other membersof the panchayat before passing the impugned order. A reference tothe impugned order, which is as follows, also shows that the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent has not only given opportunity to the petitioner andothers, but also applied his mind and due to reason that duringsummer season certain actions are to be done, as an urgent measure,he has passed the impugned order:"Miz: mU:h; Cuhl;rp xd;wpak;. tPug;geha;f;fd;gl;o Cuhl;rpapd; Jizj;jiyth;jpU/utp vd;gthpd; nghpy; tug;bgw;w g[fhhpd; mog;gilapYk;. brd;idcah;ePjpkd;w Mizg;goa[k; mt;t{uhl;rpapd; cWg;gpdh;fs;-jiyth;-Jizj;jiyth; Mfpnahhplk; tprhuiz nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/ nkw;goCuhl;rpapd; kd;wj;jPh;khd vz;/12-12/1/2007? y; bj[hptpf;fg;gl;lgoa[k; kw;Wk;Cuhl;rp kd;wj;jiyth;. Jizj;jiyth;. kw;Wk; cWg;gpdh; Mfpnahhpd;thf;FK:yg;goa[k; Mtz';fspd;goa[k; Cuhl;rpapd; eph;thfk; bray;glt[k;. jw;nghJcs;s nfhilfhy NH;epiyapy; cldo mog;gil trjpfs; nkw;bfhs;sntz;oa[k;.tPueha;f;fd;gl;o Cuhl;rpf;F rk;ke;jg;gl;l fhnrhiyfspy; ,uz;lhk;ifbahg;gkpLk; mjpfhuj;ij Jizj;jiyth; jpU/Mh;/utp vd;gthplkpUe;J khw;wpme;j Cuhl;rpapd; 1?tJ thh;L cWg;gpduhd jpU/b$/b$a;r';fh; vd;gtUf;Ffhnrhiyapy; ,uz;lhk; ifbahg;gkpLk; mjpfhuk; mspj;J ,jd; tHpMizaplg;gLfpwJ/khtl;l Ml;rpaUf;fhf. jUkg[hp/"19. I am of the considered view that there is nothing tointerfere with this order, since the procedure contemplated andprinciples of natural justice have been followed. But, as brought tothe notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner,the first respondent himself has considered certain complaintsagainst the third respondent/President, who is stated to havecommitted some misappropriation of funds and in fact, the chargesappear to be, as it is seen in the order of the first respondentdated 16.2.2009, that the third respondent has issued cheques in thenames of her relatives numbering (8) and the accounts have beenwritten in the name of a Revenue Assistant, P.Jai Shankar to the tuneof Rs.34,200/- and therefore, the first respondent has notified thataction under Section 205 of the Act for removal of the President isbeing taken. The contents of the said proceedings of the firstrespondent in Na.Ka.No.1250/2008/A1, dated 16.2.2009, which are asfollows, shows that certain charges of misappropriation are levelledagainst the third respondent:"ghh;it (2)y; fz;Ls;sthW cjtp ,af;Feh; (jzpf;if) tPueha;f;fd;gl;oCuhl;rp kd;wj;jiyth; kPjhd FiwghLfSf;F Cuhl;rp fzf;F kw;Wk;brYj;Jr;rPl;Lfs; kPs ghprPyid bra;jjpy; gpd;tUk; brYj;Jr;rPl;Lfspd; gonkw;bfhz;l brytpdk; jFjpaw;w Kiwapy; fhnrhiy jiythpd; cwtpdh; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bgahpy; tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ bjhpa te;Js;sJ/t/vz;/br/rP/vz; kw;Wk; ehs;f/nfh/vz;bjhif152/5.7.9633615522240263/17.8.073362479650386/15.10.0733641017496455/9.7.073361588950565/24.8.073362499350610/7.5.0727059468957129/12.1.0833669215450848/23.6.073361517350bkhj;jk;97381vdnt. nkw;fhQqk; 8 brYj;Jr;rPl;LfSf;fhd fhnrhiyfis rk;ge;jg;gl;lepWtd';fs; bgahpy; tH';fhky; jiythpd; cwtpdh; bgahpy; tH';fpajhy;nkw;go bkhj;j bjhif U:/97.381-? KGtJk; Cuhl;rp kd;wj;jiyth; jpUkjpbrd;dk;khs; vd;gth; tPug;geha;f;fd;gl;o Cuhl;rp epjpapy; jpUg;gp brYj;jMizaplg;gLfpwJ/,nj nghd;W fPH;f;fhQqk; bryt[r;rPl;Lfspy; nkw;fz;l brytpd';fSk;tpjpKiwfSf;F kPwp Cuhl;rp cjtpahsh; bgahpy; tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/t/vz;/br/rP/vz; kw;Wk; ehs;f/nfh/vz;bjhif121/19.6.08-11200231/22.5.0733611510500356/16.7.073361607000480/22.9.073364065000547/15.6.07336156500bkhj;jk;bkhj;jk;34200Vdnt. nkw;fhQqk; 5 bryt[ rPl;LfSf;Fhpa fhnrhiyfs; rk;ge;jg;gl;lepWtd';fspd; bgahpy; tH';fhky; tPueha;f;fd;gl;o Cuhl;rp cjtpahsh;jpU/b$a;r';fh; (bgh/) vd;gth; bgaUf;F tH';fp fhrhf;fgl;ljhy; nkw;go 5br/rPl;Lfspd; bkhj;j bjhif U:/34200-?I Cuhl;rp cjtpahsh; (bgh)jpU/b$a;r';fh; vd;gth; tPueha;f;fd;gl;o Cuhl;rp epjpapy; jpUg;gp brYj;j https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.nkw;fz;Ls;sthW bjhfapid xU khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; Cuhl;rp fzf;Fvz/1?f;F brYj;j jtwpdhy; Cuhl;rp kd;wj;jiytiu jkpH;ehL Cuhl;rpfs;rl;lk; 1994?d;go 205?d; fPH; gjtp ePf;fk; bra;jplt[k; Cuhl;rp cjtpahsiugzpePf;fk; bra;at[k; chpa eltof;if nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk; vd ,jd; K:yk;bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ mU:h; tl;lhu tsh;r;rp mYtyh; (fp/C) nkw;Fwpg;gpl;lbjhifapid Cuhl;rp epjpapy; brYj;jpa tpguk; fz;fhzpj;J ,t;tYyfj;jpw;Fbjhptpf;f ntz;oaJ/"20. The Inspectors of Panchayats appointed by the Governmenthave wide powers of inspection under Section 200 of the Act and havecontrol over the affairs of the panchayat under Section 201 of theAct. Sections 200 and 201 of the Act are as follows:"Section:200. Powers of Inspecting Officers.- (1) The Inspector or the Collector or any officerappointed under Section 199 or any other officer orperson whom the Government or the Inspector or theCollector may empower in this behalf, may-(a) enter on and inspect any immovable property,or any work in progress, under the control of anyPanchayat or any Executive Authority orCommissioner, or Secretary;(b) enter any school, dispensary, vaccinationstation or choultry maintained by or under thecontrol of any Panchayat or any other institutionmaintained by or under the control of anyPanchayat and inspect any records, registers orother documents kept in any such institution;(c) enter the office of any Panchayat and inspectany records, registers or other documents kepttherein.(2) Village Panchayats and their Presidents, ExecutiveAuthorities, Panchayat Union Councils, and theirChairmen, Commissioners, District Panchayats and theirChairmen, Secretaries and the officers and servants ofPanchayats shall be bound to afford to the officers andpersons aforesaid, such access, at all reasonable times,to Panchayat property or premises and to all documentsas may, in the opinion of such officers or persons,subject to such rules as may be prescribed, be necessaryto enable them to discharge their duties under thissection." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Section:201. Powers of officers for purpose ofcontrol.- The Inspector or any officer or person whomthe Government or the Inspector, may empower in thisbehalf may-(a) direct the Village Panchayat or Panchayat UnionCouncil or the District Panchayat to make provision forand to execute or provide any public work or amenity, orservice of the description referred to in Section 110,112 and 163; (b) call for any record, register or other document inthe possession, or under the control of any Panchayat orExecutive Authority, or Commissioner or Secretary;(c) require any Panchayat or Executive Authority orCommissioner or the Secretary to furnish any return,plan, estimate, statement, account or statistics;(d) require any Panchayat or Executive Authority orCommissioner or the Secretary to furnish any informationor report on any matter connected with such Panchayat;(e) require any Panchayat or Executive Authority or theCommissioner or the Secretary to obtain his previoussanction before giving up a claim or closing down anyinstitution which is a source of income;(f) record in writing for the consideration of anyPanchayat or Executive Authority or Commissioner or theSecretary, any observations in regard to its or hisproceedings or duties."21. In addition to that the Inspector has emergency powers underSection 203 of the Act, which is as under:"Section:203. Emergency powers of Collector andInspector.- Subject to such control as may beprescribed, the Inspector or the Collector may, in casesof emergency, direct or provide for the execution of anywork, or the doing of any act which a Panchayat orExecutive Authority or Commissioner or Secretary isempowered to execute or do and the immediate executionor doing of which is in his opinion necessary for thesafety of the public and may direct that the expense ofexecuting such work or doing such act shall be paid bythe person having the custody of the Village PanchayatFund or the Panchayat Union (General) Fund or theDistrict Panchayat (General) Fund in priority to anyother charges against such Fund except charges for theservice of authorised loans." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22. In the present factual scenario, when it is clear that evenagainst the third respondent/President charges are levelled, it isthe duty of the first respondent to take appropriate steps forprotecting the interest of the panchayat, including the funds byeffecting proper inspection and pass appropriate fresh orders underSection 188(3) of the Act in the changed circumstances.In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed,however with a direction to the first respondent to take appropriatedecision regarding the cheque signing powers under Section 188(3) ofthe Act by following the due process of law and giving notice to allthe persons concerned and pass orders expeditiously, in any eventwithin a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2008 is closed.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrarsasiTo:1. The District Collector (Inspector of Panchayats) Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri.2. The Block Development Officer Harur Panchayat Union Dharmapuri District.+ 1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.71751W.P.No.1847 of 2008TM(CO)EM/5.1.10