N.Palaniandi v. The Inspector of Panchayats-cum-District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED:08.09.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARW.P(MD)No.10220 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011N.Palaniandi :Petitioner-Vs-1.The Inspector of Panchayats-cum-District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy. 2.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Thottiyam, Trichy District. 3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Thottiyam, Trichy Distirct. 4.The Tahsildar, Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District. :RespondentsPRAYER:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the recordsrelating to the order passed by the first respondent inNa.Ka.No.A9/1795/2010, dated 30.06.2010 and quash the same as illegal andconsequently to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to exerciseall powers as the president of the Panchayat. For Petitioner : Mr.M.AjmalkhanFor R-1 R-3 and R-4: Mr.M.Govindan, Spl. Government PleaderFor R-2 : Mr.D.Muruganandam, Addl. Govt. Pleader ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the firstrespondent in Na.Ka.No.A9/1795/2010, dated 30.06.2010 and to direct therespondent to allow the petitioner to exercise all powers as the presidentof the Panchayat. 2.Heard Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned counsel for the petitioner andMr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for therespondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Mr.D.Muruganandham, learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader for R-2. 3.By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 4.The petitioner is a President of Tholurpatti Panchayat and isaggrieved by an order passed by the first respondent Inspector ofPanchayat/District Collector cancelling the check signing power by theimpugned proceedings. 5.The brief facts which are relevant for the case, are as follows:On 30.06.2010, the first respondent issued show cause notice-cum-chargememo under Section 205 of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994(in short "theAct") listing out various irregularities and called upon the petitioner to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2submit his explanation within fifteen days. On the same day, referring tothe proceedings initiated under Section 205 of the Act, the authority issuedthe impugned proceedings inter alia contending that various irregularitieshave been committed by the petitioner in the conduct of the affairs of thePanchayat and in exercise of his emergency power under Section 203 of theAct, he is withdrawing the cheque signing power from the President and vicePresident and directed that the same should be exercised by the BlockDevelopment Officer till the proceedings initiated under Section 205 of theAct(Wrongly stated as Section 203 of the Act) is completed. Challenging thesame, the Writ Petition has been filed. 6.The contentions of the petitioner are as follows:(i)Separate order should be passed in the proceedings initiated underSection 203 of the Act. (ii)Merely on the basis of the report of the Assistant Director ofPanchayat, the District Collector has mechanically passed the order underSection 203 of the Act. That is not in consonance with the judgment of theDivision Bench of this Court in Pugazhendran vs. B.G.Balu reported in 2005(1) CTC 545. He relied upon Paragraph No.29 of the said judgment to saythat the District Collector should independently apply the mind. Thedecision reads as follows: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, Katpadi,Panchayat Union, which in our opinion was not proper. 7.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for therespondents relied upon Paragraph No.11 of the judgment of the DivisionBench of this Court in P.Suganthi vs. the District Collector and anotherreported in 2011 2 CTC 381 and the earlier decision of this Court inJ.A.Karunanithi vs. District Collector reported in (2011) 5 MLJ 766 andstated that pursuant to Section 205 proceedings, the cheque signing powercan be withdrawn invoking Section 203 of the Act. 8.Paragraph No.11 of the decision in P.Suganthi vs. the DistrictCollector and another reported in 2011 2 CTC 381 reads as follows:"11.When the proceedings is initiated as against thePresident of Village related to financial misdeeds, we are of theview that the transferring the cheque signing power from theVillage President to Block Development Officer, the SecondRespondent is definitely a case of emergency fitting within theprovisions of Section 203 of the Act. If the Appellant is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3allowed to continue to sign the cheques, it would amount toendorse the alleged irregularities committed by the Appellant.Moreover, the transferring of cheque signing power is only aninterim arrangement, till the completion of the proceedingsinitiated as against the Appellant under Section 205 of the Act."9.The contention of the petitioner is not tenable for the followingreasons:(i)Admittedly on 30.06.2010, the proceedings under Section 205 of TheTamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, was initiated and the petitioner was calledupon to show cause. On the same day, the impugned proceedings under Section203 of the Act has been passed. The proceeding under Section 205 of the Acthas been initiated after going through all the materials submitted to theauthority and therefore Section 203 order was also passed. Therefore,application of mind by the District Collector is evident in the proceedingsinitiated under Section 205 of the Act, which is also based on the report ofthe Assistant Director. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that theDistrict Collector issued the impugned proceedings under Section 203 of theAct without application of mind cannot be sustained. The entire materialwas before the Inspector of Panchayat. (ii)There is no need to issue separate show-cause notice under Section203 of the Act as the initiation of proceedings under 205 of the Act itselfis a good ground to invoke the emergency power and withdraw the checksigning power from the President or any other persons concerned. This viewhas been emphasized by the Division Bench of this Court in P.Suganthi vs.the District Collector and another reported in 2011 2 CTC 381 in ParagraphNo.11 referred to above. In that case also, Proceedings under Section 205of the Act was initiated on 31.05.2010 and the Proceedings under Section 203of the Act order was issued subsequently on 13.08.2010. The Court take intoaccount the notice issued under Section 205 of the Act to sustain the orderissued for withdrawing the cheque signing power under Section 203 of theAct. Even in the case in J.A.Karunanithi v. District Collector, reported in(2011) 5 MLJ 766 (cited supra), I have followed the decision of the DivisionBench in P.Suganthi v. District Collector-cum Inspector of Panchayatsreported in 2011 (2) CTC 381, wherein in Paragraph No.7, the scope of powerunder Section 203 of the Act, has been discussed. 7.Further, on going through the provisions of Section 203 ofthe Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, it is apparent that theCollector, the Inspector of Panchyats has the power to direct orprovide for the execution of any work or the doing of any actwhich a Panchayat or Executive Authority of Commissioner, etc., isempowered to execute or do and in exercise of such function andthe Collector may direct that the expenses of executing such workor doing such act shall be paid by the person having the custodyof the Village Panchayat Fund or the Panchayat Union (General)Fund etc. This provision presupposes the exercise of such powerin cases of emergency under any contingency at the discretion ofthe Inspector of Panchayats. This power, however, will have to beexercised for good reasons. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

410.The decision of the learned single judge in K.Pannaiselvam v. TheDistrict Collector & Others reported in CDJ 2008 MHC 5818 relied upon by thepetitioner was rendered prior the Division Bench judgment and therefore,the said decision will be of no assistance to the petitioner's plea. TheDivision Bench decision reported in 2005 (1) CTC 545 does not apply to thefacts of the present case.11.In view of the above, challenge to the impugned order fails. Oneother reason for this Court, not to entertain the Writ Petition, is theinordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. The impugnedproceedings was issued on 30.06.2010 and after one year and two months, itis challenged. On this ground also, the Writ Petition is liable to bedismissed. 12.Accordingly, finding no merits the Writ Petition is dismissed at theadmission stage. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous Petition isclosed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (Crl.side)/ TRUE COPY /Sub Assistant RegistrarTo:1.The Inspector of Panchayats-cum-District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy. 2.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Thottiyam, Trichy District. 3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Thottiyam, Trichy Distirct. 4.The Tahsildar, Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District. +1CC to Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, Advocate. SR.No.31017.PmRP/26.09.2011/4P/6C.W.P.(MD)No.10220 of 201108.09.2011