THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANANWrit Petition No
Case Details
Acts & Sections
W.P.No.34042 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.09.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANWrit Petition No.34042 of 2025and WMP No.38209 of 2025Vijayalakshmi ... PetitionerVs.1. The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat, Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi District. 2. The Additional District Officer (Project and Planning) Rural Development Office, District Collectorate, Kallakurichi District.3. The Assistant Director (Panchayat), Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi District. 4. The Assistant Director (Audit), Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi District. 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 20255. The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District.6. The Block Development Officer, Office of the Block Development Officer, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District.7. The President, Thenkunam Village Panchayat, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impguned proceedings passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings ROC No.A4/553/2025 dated 01.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal and improper and consequently direct the first respondent to make the petitioner as a joint signatories/operation power on DSC Keys as second signatories and authorisation of transactions under TNPASS as checker through validation of OTP. For Petitioner: Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy For Respondents: Ms. Meera Arumugham, Additional Government Pleader, for RR 1 to 5 Ms.P.Rajarajeswari, for RR 6 & 72/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025ORDERThe writ petitioner challenges the order passed by the first respondent invoking Section 204(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act of 1994.2. I heard Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Meera Arumugham, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the contesting respondents 1 to 5 and Ms.P.Rajarajeswari, learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7.3. The petitioner was elected as a member of the third Ward of the Thenkulam Village Panchayat. Subsequently, the members of the Panchayat elected her as the Vice President in the year 2021. On 04.05.2025, the petitioner was visited with a “show cause” notice issued by the third respondent. This notice called upon her to explain as to why she is not releasing payments for the public works executed on behalf of the Panchayat. 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 20254. The petitioner issued a reply on 23.05.2025 stating that the work that has been executed is of substandard quality and hence without rectifying the defects, she is not inclined to clear the payment.She took a further stand that she advised the contractor to rectify the defects, but he had failed to do so. This was followed up with notice on 13.06.2025 by the petitioner and the other Ward Members. They had pointed out that the road had been re-laid without properly excavating the previously laid road and that this would affect the public at large. In the representation, they also called upon the Authorities not to release the payment. Soon thereafter, the petitioner was visited with the impugned order suspending her power to sign the cheques on behalf of the Panchayat. Her specific plea is that she was not heard before the orders were passed nor she was put on notice on the materials relied upon.5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid plea, I requested Ms.Meera Arumugham, learned Additional Government Pleader, to get instructions from the District Collector as to the circumstances in which the orders came 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025to be passed. I took up the matter for hearing today. 6. Ms.MeeraArumugham, produced the proceedings of the District Collector dated 16.09.2025. In the instructions, the District Collector has taken a stand that the Vice President is not technically qualified to express an opinion about the quality of the work, when the same had already been inspected and approved by the officials belonging to the Engineering Department of the Ulundurpet Block, Kallakurichi District. He points that the writ petitioner is incompetent to evaluate the implementation of the scheme on technical grounds since a separate technical team is functioning to evaluate the scheme works. He further points out that he received a report from the Block Development Officer that the Writ Petitioner is regularly refusing to cooperate to the Panchayat Administration and since it causes a hindrance to the smooth functioning of the Panchayat Administration, he had passed the impugned order.7. I have gone through the affidavit and the instructions that has been passed across by Ms.Meera Arumugham. I have applied my mind to the 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025facts before me.8. As the facts have already been set forth above, it is unnecessary to reiterate the same in this portion of the judgment. The District Collector, as the Inspector of Panchayat, has the power to take action under Section 204 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, and authorize the duties that have been imposed on recalcitrant members to be exercised by any other person or authority. 9. The impugned order states that apart from the petitioner refusing to sign the cheques, her husband one Thiru.Govindan is interfering in the administration of the Panchayat. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the petitioner’s action and that of her husband, the impugned order came to be passed.10. The show cause notice that had been issued to the petitioner had only called upon, an explanation from the writ petitioner, as to why she is not providing her DSC Keys and OTP for the purpose of making the on-line 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025payment. If this is to be treated as the show cause notice, the impugned order can obviously not exceed the scope of the show cause notice. The explanation of the petitioner if unacceptable to the Block Development Officer, the District Collector should have called upon the petitioner to explain on the further allegations that had been presented before him and found in the impugned order. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order came to be passed.11. The power under Section 204(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, is a drastic power where the District Collector should come to a conclusion that the Village Panchayat is unable to function on account of the attitude of the petitioner. The District Collector, as the Inspector of Panchayat, is no doubt empowered to receive a report from his Subordinates and come to a conclusion. 12. The power, however, has to be exercised by the Collector alone. If he were to receive a report from the Block Development Officer and pass an order, he should have at least given a copy of the report to the petitioner 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025and called upon her to give her explanation on the further allegations that are found in the report and not found in the show cause notice. These are too fundamental a principle to be reiterated. A person cannot be condemned without an opportunity of being heard. As I find the violation of principles of natural justice at the hands of the District Collector, the order is set aside. 13. As serious allegations have been made against the petitioner which according to the District Collector has paralyzed the functioning of the Village Panchayat, I feel this is the case where the entire exercise has to be redone. Accordingly the Writ Petition stands allowed with the following directions.(i) The District Collector will issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not invoke the power under Section 204(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. Ms.Meera Arumugham states this notice will be issued on 26.09.2025, the petitioner shall submit her 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025explanation to the show cause notice so issued by 13.10.2025. The District Collector shall pass an order after perusal of the show cause notice and the reply so received by 29.10.2025.(ii) At the time of issuance of the fresh show cause notice, the District Collector will give the petitioner the copies of the report on the basis of which show cause notice is being issued.14. The Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Call on for compliance on 03.11.2025.17.09.2025jvInternet: YesIndex: Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non Speaking order9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025To1. The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat, Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi District. 2. The Additional District Officer (Project and Planning) Rural Development Office, District Collectorate, Kallakurichi District.3. The Assistant Director (Panchayat), Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi District. 4. The Assistant Director (Audit), Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi District. 5. The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District.6. The Block Development Officer, Office of the Block Development Officer, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District.7. The President, Thenkunam Village Panchayat, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District.10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. jvWrit Petition No.34042 of 2025and WMP No.38209 of 202517.09.202511/11
W.P.No.34042 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.09.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANWrit Petition No.34042 of 2025and WMP No.38209 of 2025Vijayalakshmi ... PetitionerVs.1. The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat, Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi District. 2. The Additional District Officer (Project and Planning) Rural Development Office, District Collectorate, Kallakurichi District.3. The Assistant Director (Panchayat), Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi District. 4. The Assistant Director (Audit), Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi District. 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 20255. The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District.6. The Block Development Officer, Office of the Block Development Officer, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District.7. The President, Thenkunam Village Panchayat, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impguned proceedings passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings ROC No.A4/553/2025 dated 01.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal and improper and consequently direct the first respondent to make the petitioner as a joint signatories/operation power on DSC Keys as second signatories and authorisation of transactions under TNPASS as checker through validation of OTP. For Petitioner: Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy For Respondents: Ms. Meera Arumugham, Additional Government Pleader, for RR 1 to 5 Ms.P.Rajarajeswari, for RR 6 & 72/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025ORDERThe writ petitioner challenges the order passed by the first respondent invoking Section 204(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act of 1994.2. I heard Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Meera Arumugham, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the contesting respondents 1 to 5 and Ms.P.Rajarajeswari, learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7.3. The petitioner was elected as a member of the third Ward of the Thenkulam Village Panchayat. Subsequently, the members of the Panchayat elected her as the Vice President in the year 2021. On 04.05.2025, the petitioner was visited with a “show cause” notice issued by the third respondent. This notice called upon her to explain as to why she is not releasing payments for the public works executed on behalf of the Panchayat. 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 20254. The petitioner issued a reply on 23.05.2025 stating that the work that has been executed is of substandard quality and hence without rectifying the defects, she is not inclined to clear the payment.She took a further stand that she advised the contractor to rectify the defects, but he had failed to do so. This was followed up with notice on 13.06.2025 by the petitioner and the other Ward Members. They had pointed out that the road had been re-laid without properly excavating the previously laid road and that this would affect the public at large. In the representation, they also called upon the Authorities not to release the payment. Soon thereafter, the petitioner was visited with the impugned order suspending her power to sign the cheques on behalf of the Panchayat. Her specific plea is that she was not heard before the orders were passed nor she was put on notice on the materials relied upon.5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid plea, I requested Ms.Meera Arumugham, learned Additional Government Pleader, to get instructions from the District Collector as to the circumstances in which the orders came 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025to be passed. I took up the matter for hearing today. 6. Ms.MeeraArumugham, produced the proceedings of the District Collector dated 16.09.2025. In the instructions, the District Collector has taken a stand that the Vice President is not technically qualified to express an opinion about the quality of the work, when the same had already been inspected and approved by the officials belonging to the Engineering Department of the Ulundurpet Block, Kallakurichi District. He points that the writ petitioner is incompetent to evaluate the implementation of the scheme on technical grounds since a separate technical team is functioning to evaluate the scheme works. He further points out that he received a report from the Block Development Officer that the Writ Petitioner is regularly refusing to cooperate to the Panchayat Administration and since it causes a hindrance to the smooth functioning of the Panchayat Administration, he had passed the impugned order.7. I have gone through the affidavit and the instructions that has been passed across by Ms.Meera Arumugham. I have applied my mind to the 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025facts before me.8. As the facts have already been set forth above, it is unnecessary to reiterate the same in this portion of the judgment. The District Collector, as the Inspector of Panchayat, has the power to take action under Section 204 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, and authorize the duties that have been imposed on recalcitrant members to be exercised by any other person or authority. 9. The impugned order states that apart from the petitioner refusing to sign the cheques, her husband one Thiru.Govindan is interfering in the administration of the Panchayat. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the petitioner’s action and that of her husband, the impugned order came to be passed.10. The show cause notice that had been issued to the petitioner had only called upon, an explanation from the writ petitioner, as to why she is not providing her DSC Keys and OTP for the purpose of making the on-line 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025payment. If this is to be treated as the show cause notice, the impugned order can obviously not exceed the scope of the show cause notice. The explanation of the petitioner if unacceptable to the Block Development Officer, the District Collector should have called upon the petitioner to explain on the further allegations that had been presented before him and found in the impugned order. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order came to be passed.11. The power under Section 204(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, is a drastic power where the District Collector should come to a conclusion that the Village Panchayat is unable to function on account of the attitude of the petitioner. The District Collector, as the Inspector of Panchayat, is no doubt empowered to receive a report from his Subordinates and come to a conclusion. 12. The power, however, has to be exercised by the Collector alone. If he were to receive a report from the Block Development Officer and pass an order, he should have at least given a copy of the report to the petitioner 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025and called upon her to give her explanation on the further allegations that are found in the report and not found in the show cause notice. These are too fundamental a principle to be reiterated. A person cannot be condemned without an opportunity of being heard. As I find the violation of principles of natural justice at the hands of the District Collector, the order is set aside. 13. As serious allegations have been made against the petitioner which according to the District Collector has paralyzed the functioning of the Village Panchayat, I feel this is the case where the entire exercise has to be redone. Accordingly the Writ Petition stands allowed with the following directions.(i) The District Collector will issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not invoke the power under Section 204(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. Ms.Meera Arumugham states this notice will be issued on 26.09.2025, the petitioner shall submit her 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025explanation to the show cause notice so issued by 13.10.2025. The District Collector shall pass an order after perusal of the show cause notice and the reply so received by 29.10.2025.(ii) At the time of issuance of the fresh show cause notice, the District Collector will give the petitioner the copies of the report on the basis of which show cause notice is being issued.14. The Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Call on for compliance on 03.11.2025.17.09.2025jvInternet: YesIndex: Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non Speaking order9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025To1. The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat, Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi District. 2. The Additional District Officer (Project and Planning) Rural Development Office, District Collectorate, Kallakurichi District.3. The Assistant Director (Panchayat), Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi District. 4. The Assistant Director (Audit), Office of the District Collector, Kallakurichi District. 5. The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District.6. The Block Development Officer, Office of the Block Development Officer, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District.7. The President, Thenkunam Village Panchayat, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District.10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.34042 of 2025V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. jvWrit Petition No.34042 of 2025and WMP No.38209 of 202517.09.202511/11