The main legal point established in the judgment is that the actions of the Inspector under Section 205 of the Panchayats Act are quasi-judicial in nature, and reasons must be recorded in certain situations, particularly when the Inspector differs with the views of the Village Panchayat.

Common Judgment :

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

In exercise of power conferred by sub-section (11) of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Panchayats Act), the District Collector – cum – Inspector, District Panchayat, Villupuram District, ordered freezing of accounts of the Panchayat standing with the Bank and removed the President of the Panchayat. Learned single Judge set aside the said order as the District Collector-cum-Inspector has not shown any reasons whatsoever for passing the order removing the respondent-petitioner from the post of President.

2. Section 149-A (2) of the then Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 (XXXV of 1958) was parimateria similar to Section 205 of the Panchayats Act, 1994. Section 149-A of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 fell for consideration before a Division Bench in N.P. Guruswamy – Vs – The Collector & Inspector of Panchayat, 1997 (2) MLJ 326, wherein this Court held that exercise of discretion under Section 149-A (2) is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial and, therefore, the Collector-cum-Inspector is not bound to give reasons for his accepting the views of the Panchayat.

3. We have heard the parties and perused the record.

4. U/s 149-A of the Panchayats Act, 1958 (Old Act), the Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayat was empowered to remove the Panchayat President following the prescribed procedure. In N.P. Guruswamys case, on behalf of the appellant it was argued that removal u/s 149-A was quasi-judicial in nature and in absence of reasons whatsoever given by the Inspector, the order was not valid. Rejecting such contention, learned Judge, while observed that power exercised by the Collector was not quasi-judicial, also held that it was not necessary to give reasons in accepting the report for removal of the President. Section 149-A (1) provides that on representation in writing signed by not less than two-thirds of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat containing the statement of charges against the President and presented in person to the Inspector by any two of the members of the Panchayat, only when the Inspector is satisfied that the President wilfully omits or refuse to carry out or disobeys any provisions of the Act, he shall, by notice in writing, require the President to offer his explanation and only, thereafter, if not satisfied, forward the copy of the notice and explanation to the Tahsildar for convening a meeting for considering the proposal for removal of President and on convening such meeting, if majority of the Panchayat expresses its view that the President should be removed from office, only then the President is removed. In the said case, the Court observed as follows :-

The judgment in N.P. Guruswamys case (supra) having doubted, the case has been referred to this Larger Bench.

“4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the function of the Inspector acting under Section 149-A (1) is quasi-judicial in nature and, therefore, the Inspector was bound to give reasons. We are unable to accept this contention for the rights and privileges of the President flow from the statutory provisions and he cannot claim any right which is not secured to him under the enactment. In the administration of the Panchayat certain procedure is envisaged. If two-thirds of the members of the Panchayat are not satisfied with the President, and if they present a representation in writing as provided under section 149-A (1) (b), the Inspector shall act under sub-section (2), i.e., if he considers it necessary, he has to consider the explanation of the President and, if he finds that the explanation is not satisfactory, he shall direct the Tahsildar to convene a meeting. After considering the views of the Panchayat the Inspector shall in his discretion, either remove the President from office by notification or drop further action. This exercise of the discretion cannot be said to be judicial or quasi-judicial. We see