High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN
Pugazhendran - Appellant
Versus
B.G.Balu S/o.Gopal & Others - Respondents
W.A.No. 1799 of 2004 and W.A.M.P.No. 3369 of 2004 and W.A.M.P.No. 4830 of 2004
Decided On : 28 January 2005
Markandey Katju, CJ.
This writ appeal involves an important question of law, which has arisen in many cases, and hence we are giving this detailed judgment.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the records, as well as the impugned judgment.
3. The controversy in this case is regarding the interpretation of Section 188 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which states:-
“ Subject to such general control as the village panchayat may exercise from time to time, all cheques for payment from Village Panchyat Fund or other funds constituted under sub-section
(2) shall be signed jointly by the president and vice-president and in the absence of the president or vice-president, as the case may be, by the vice-president or the president and another member authorized by the village panchayat at a meeting in this behalf”
4. As can be seen from a perusal of Section 188(3) of the Act, all cheques for payment from the Village Panchayat Fund or other funds constituted under sub-section (2) have to be signed jointly by the President and Vice President, and in the absence of President or Vice-President, as the case may be, by the Vice-President or President and another member authorized by the village panchayat at a meeting in this behalf.
5. The question, which arises in this case, is that if the president or vice president refuses to sign a cheque, whether it should be treated as ‘absence’ within the meaning of the word in Section 188(3) of the Act. A situation may arise where the president and vice-president of the village panchayat may be of different political parties or may be adversaries for other reasons, and one of them refuses to sign a cheque of the Village Panchayat Fund or other funds constituted under sub-section(2).
6. To deal with this situation, G.O.Ms.No. 92 dated 26.3.1997 has been issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, in which it is stated:-
“All the accounts should be jointly operated by the President and the Vice President. In exceptional cases, when there is adversarial relationship between the President and the Vice President, the panchayat, may, by a resolution authorize any other member other than the Vice President to jointly operate the account along with the President. Provided that prior approval of the Inspector of Panchayats (District Collector) will be obtained for this”
7. The petitioner in W.P.No. 1828 of 2004 has alleged that he is the Vice-President of Brammapuram Village Panchayat, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. It is alleged by the petitioner in paragraph-3 of the affidavit that the President of the Village Panchayat is doing several acts detrimental to the interest of the panchayat, and he misused his power to the extent possible. The petitioner has alleged that the President of the Village Panchayat got a resolution passed on 07.10.2002 to the effect that the powers of the Vice-President to sign the cheque should be cancelled, and such power should be given to another member Mr.V.Srinivasan. Pursuant to the said resolution, and the recommendation of the Block Development Officer, Katpadi, the District Collector/first respondent passed an order cancelling the writ petitioner’s power to sign the cheques jointly with the President and granting the power to Mr.V.Srinivasan. It is alleged that this order is violative of Section 188(3) of the Act. The petitioner has alleged that there was no delay on his part to sign the cheques. He has further alleged that he was available and has not been removed and hence, it cannot be said that he was absent. It is further alleged that the rules of natural justice were violated, as no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, the District Collector, Vellore, who is also the Inspector of Panchayats, Vellore District. In dparagraph-4 of the counter, it is alleged that the Vice-President did not co-o
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.