IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Govindan Nair, CJ. And A. Varadarajan, J.
S. Subramanian …..Appellant(s)
Versus
V. Vellaikannu and others . …..Respondent(s)
W.A.No. 312 of 1977 and W.P. No. 1685 of 1977.
Decided On : 23 December 1977
2. On a complaint of one K. R. Sevugaperumal, a member of the Aralikottai Panchayat presented to the first respondent, Collector of Ramanathapuram, on 21st September, 1976 alleging that the petitioner Vellaikannu had committed certain irregularities in the administration of the Panchayat, the Divisional Development Officer, Devakottai directed the petitioner, by an order dated 17th November, l976, to produce all the registers of the Panchayat before him on 23rd November, 1976. The first respondent framed 10 charges against the petitioner and. Called upon him,by a notice dated 8th January, 1971, to show cause within 15 days of receipt of the notice, as to why he should not be removed from, the Presidentship of the Panchayat under section 149-A (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act (XXXV of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in view of those charges. The petitioner was given further time up to 7th February, 1977 to submit his explanation and. He was permitted to inspect the records of the Panchayat in the presence of the Divisional Development Officer, Devakottai. The explanation of the petitioner was submitted with a request that it may be accepted and the charges against him dropped. The first respondent caused the charges to be placed before the Panchayat at a metting held on 9th March, 1977 presided over by the Tahsildar of Tirupattur and attended by seven members of the Panchayat including the petitioner. In that meeting, five members voted against the first respondent’s proposed action to remove the petitioner from the Presidentship of the Panchayat, ore member Mookkan stated that he does not know anything about charges 2, 8 and 9 and the other members K. R. Sevugaperumal, who presented the petition before the first respondent on 22nd September, 1976 as stated earlier, alone voted in favour of the proposed action. However, the first respondent stated in his impugned order dated 8th April, l977 that the petitioner’s explanation was not satisfactory and unacceptable, that all the charges except Charge No. 8 were proved, that they all related to serious irregularities and that in the interest of the proper administration of the affairs of the Panchayat, he was not accepting the views of the Panchayat as expressed in the meeting held on 9th March, l9?7 and had decided to remove the petitioner from the Presidentship of the Panchayat under section 149-A
D. F. O. Sowth Kheri v. Ram Sarehi Singh [1971] 3 S.C.C. 864; A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 205
Guruswamy v. Collector and Inspector of Panchayat : (l977] 2 M.L.J. 326
Bhagai Ram v. State of Punjab [1973] 1 S.C.R. 92; A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1571
State of Madras v. Tirunelveli Municipal Council : [1967] 1 M.L.J. 47
Mahabir Prasad v. State of U. P. [1971] 1 S.C.J. 256; [1971] 1 S.C.R. 201;A.I.R. l970 S.C. 1302
Stake of Orissa v. Binapani Dei [1967] 2 S.C.J. 339; [1967] 2 S.C.R. 625;A.I.R. l967 S.C. 1269
A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India [1970] 1 S.C.J. 381; (l970] 1 S.C.R. 457; A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 150
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.