High Court · 2012

1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 14.03.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARANW.P.(MD)Nos.14976 and 14977 of 2011andM.P.(MD)Nos.2/2011 and 1/2012 and 1/2011Sivasakthi,W/o.Ganesan,The President,Keelaparuthiyur Village Panchayat,Ramnad District. : Petitioner in both W.Ps. Vs. 1.The District Collector -cum- Inspector of Panchayat, Ramnad District,Ramnad.2.The Assistant Director (Panchayat), Ramnad District,Ramnad.3.The Block Development Officer, (Rural Panchayat), Paramakudi Panchayat Union, Ramnad District.4.Selvi Nagarajan, The Vice President, Keelaparuthiyur Village Panchayat, Ramnad District. : Respondents in both W.Ps.Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.14976/2011: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ ofCertiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings made inNa.Ka.A3/3331/2011, dated 09.12.2011 on the file of the first respondentand quash the same.Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.14977/2011: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ ofMandamus, directing the first respondent to pass suitable orders on therepresentation of the petitioner dated 31.10.2011 and declare the fourthrespondent is disqualified for being Vice President of KeelaparuthiyurVillage Panchayat, Ramnad District and permit the Member of Ward No.1 ofKeelaparuthiyur Village Panchayat to sign the cheque along with thepetitioner to operate the Panchayat Account. For Petitionerin both Cases : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran For Respondents 1&2: Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss Government AdvocateFor Respondent No.3: Mr.B.Pughalendhi Special Government PleaderFor Respondent No.4: Mr.N.Dilip KumarORDERThese two Writ Petitions, at the instance of the President ofKeelaparuthiyur Village Panchayat, Ramnad, primarily challenges theproceedings dated 09 December, 2011, on the file of the District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2Collector, whereby and whereunder, she was directed to open a bankaccount along with the Vice President. 2. The petitioner also seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing theDistrict Collector to pass appropriate orders on her representation dated31 October, 2011 filed for the purpose of disqualifying the fourthrespondent and to permit member of Ward No.1 to sign the cheque alongwith her.3. The petitioner was elected as the President ofKeelaparuthiyur Village on 19 October, 2011. There are six wards in theVillage Panchayat. The fourth respondent was elected as member of WardNo.6. She contested for the post of Vice President. The election was heldon 29 October, 2011. The Election Officer declared the election of thefourth respondent without visiting the Panchayat Office. Therefore, thepetitioner preferred a complaint to the District Collector on 31 October,2011, requesting him to cancel the election. While the said complaint waspending before the District Collector, the Block Development Officerpassed an order on 18 November, 2011, directing the petitioner to open ajoint account along with the Vice President. The petitioner convened anurgent meeting of the Panchayat and passed a resolution on 21 November,2011, resolving to open a bank account along with Thiru.Shanmugam, memberof Ward No.1. The resolution was forwarded to the Block DevelopmentOfficer. Since there was no follow-up action, she filed a complaintbefore the District Collector. The District Collector, thereafter, passedan order on 09 December, 2011, directing the petitioner to open a bankaccount along with the Vice President. Feeling aggrieved by the saidorder dated 09 December, 2011, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (MD)No.14976 of 2011. She has also prayed for a direction to the firstrespondent to consider her representation and remove the fourthrespondent from the post of Vice President and that is the subject matterin Writ Petition (MD)No.14977 of 2011.4. The fourth respondent, in her counter-affidavit, disputedthe contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the WritPetition. According to the fourth respondent, she was duly elected asVice president of Keelaparuthiyur Village Panchayat. The election washeld on 29 October, 2011. The fourth respondent enjoyed the support ofmajority of members. The Election Officer recorded the minutes of theelection and found that the fourth respondent obtained majority of votesand declared her as Vice President. The petitioner is a staunch memberof a different political party. The petitioner on account of politicalreasons requested the Block Development Officer to open an account inassociation with a ward member instead of opening the account along withthe Vice President. The fourth respondent also disputed the so calledmeeting held on 21 November, 2011. Accordingly, she justified the orderpassed by the District Collector.W.P.(MD)No.14977 of 2011:5. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, to cancel theelection to the office of Vice President. The Minutes prepared by theElection Officer clearly gives an indication that the election wasconducted on 29 October, 2011 and the fourth respondent was elected asVice President. The petitioner has not challenged the election of thefourth respondent before the appropriate forum. She has only given a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3representation before the District Collector. The District Collectorcannot examine the election process, as he is not an Election Tribunal.The question of giving a representation to the District Collector wouldnot serve the purpose. In case she is aggrieved by the election of thefourth respondent as Vice President, the proper remedy is to approach thedesignated authority. However, the fact remains that no such electionpetition was filed by the petitioner or others challenging the electionof the fourth respondent. Therefore, I do not find any merit in thecontention raised on behalf of the petitioner. There is no statutory dutycast on the District Collector to consider the representation made forthe purpose of cancelling the election of fourth respondent. Therefore,no Mandamus could be issued to the first respondent. Accordingly, W.P.(MD)No.14977 of 2011 is dismissed. Consequently, the connectedmiscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.W.P.(MD)No.14976 of 2011:6. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passedby the District Collector, directing the petitioner to open a bankaccount in association with the fourth respondent. Section 188(3) of theTamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 mandates that the bank account of thePanchayat shall be opened by the President in association with the VicePresident. It is only in the absence of the Vice President, the Panchayatcan nominate a member to open the account along with the President. Whenthere is an elected Vice President in office, the President has to openthe account only with the Vice President. The question of Panchayattaking a decision authorising a member to open the account does not arise.7. The District Collector, having appraised of the fact thatthe petitioner failed to open a bank account along with the VicePresident, in spite of the readiness on the part of the Vice President tosign the necessary form to open the account, rightly directed thepetitioner to open the account. The impugned order has to be taken inthat sense. The petitioner, even in her affidavit, has no case that thefourth respondent was not co-operating with her for the purpose ofopening bank account. The petitioner wanted the fourth respondent to bedisqualified. So long as the fourth respondent continue as VicePresident, she is having every right to take part in the matter ofopening and operation of bank accounts. The fourth respondent was given astatutory right to open account along with the President. The said rightcannot be taken away by the petitioner on such flimsy reasons. When theStatute says that the account should be opened and operated by thePresident and Vice President together, the President cannot avoid thestatutory function by convening the Panchayat meeting and passing aresolution authorising an ordinary member to open the account. TheCollector was fully justified in passing the impugned order.8. The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 gives power to theInspector of Panchayat to take action against the Village Panchayat, itsPresident and other authorities. The impugned proceeding was issuedinvoking the powers conferred on the Collector under Section 204(1) ofthe Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. Section 204(1) gives authority tothe Collector to call upon the defaulting authority to perform aparticular act within a particular period. In the event of the failure onthe part of the said authority to perform such duty, Sub- Section 2 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4Section 204 gives authority to the District Collector to appoint someother person to perform the function. The Collector has passed theimpugned order in exercise of his power under Section 204(1). Thepetitioner has no case that the Collector has no such powers. TheCollector, having found that the petitioner deliberately kept the fourthrespondent away from the Panchayat proceedings and failed to take herinto confidence to open the account, issued the impugned order in theinterest of the Village Panchayat. The Collector cannot be a mutespectator in a case like this. The Collector should exercise hisstatutory function. The action of the Collector in issuing the impugnedproceedings was only to keep the things in order. Therefore, I do notfind any merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.9. The petitioner is given 15 days time to open the bankaccount along with the fourth respondent. In case the petitioner fails toopen the bank account, as indicated above, it is open to the DistrictCollector to take appropriate proceedings invoking the powers under theTamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.10. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.14976 of 2011 is dismissedwith the above observation. Consequently, the connected miscellaneouspetitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(AS)/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The District Collector -cum- Inspector of Panchayat, Ramnad District,Ramnad.2.The Assistant Director (Panchayat), Ramnad District, Ramnad.3.The Block Development Officer, (Rural Panchayat), Paramakudi Panchayat Union, Ramnad District.4.Selvi Nagarajan, The Vice President, Keelaparuthiyur Village Panchayat, Ramnad District.SMLCommon Order made in PJR:22.03.2012:4p/5c W.P.(MD)Nos.14976 and 14977 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.2/2011 and 1/2012 and 1/2011 Dated:- 14.03.2012