Powers conferred with executive authority could not be exercised by President of Village Panchayat.

Dharma Rao Elipe, J.

Learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By the consent of counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 01.02.2007, passed by the second respondent, who is the elected president of the Vachakaranpatti Village Panchayat in the local body elections held on 13.10.2006, with regard to removal of the petitioners Aavin Milk Shop situated in a portion of the land in Survey No.156, which is classified as road poramboke, within a period of two days.

3. According to the petitioner, on 06.08.2004 he was appointed as an agent to distribute Aavin Milk Products in and around R.R.Nagar, for which purpose some extent of land in Survey Number 156 of the village was allotted to him. On 09.09.2004, the District Collector inaugurated the shop and thereafter he is running the shop. As some area of the land in Survey No.156 was in need for road expansion and his shop was about to be removed, he made a request to the second respondent for allotting some other land and on 19.09.2006 the second respondent also allotted the present area in the same survey number. Now, the newly elected President of the village, by his impugned order, directed the petitioner to remove the shop, which he constructed, within two days on the ground that he has constructed the shop without permission and further the land is classified as road poramboke and the same is required for construction of shops and toilets.

4. Aggrieved by the above said order, the present writ petition has been filed contending that due licence was granted to the petitioner to run the shop by the second respondent panchayat and the licence is valid upto 05.08.2007. Further it is submitted that it is not correct to state that the petitioner has constructed the shop in the land in question without prior permission of the panchayat, as such the second respondent on 19.09.2006 gave permission. It is further stated that giving two days time to remove the alleged encroachment, without giving any prior notice, is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the president of the village panchayat has no power under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 to pass the impugned order, since as per Section 131(2) of the Act the power is vested with the Executive Officer of the panchayat or the Commissioner of the Pnahcyat Union Council. Therefore, the president has no power to pass the impugned order, unless and until the members of the panchayat council enabling the president pass a resolution, he cannot take any decision. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned is non-est in the eye of law and it is liable to be quashed.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds raised attacking the impugned order, we went through the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (in short "the Act"). Chapter-V of the Act deals with the powers and duties of the Executive Authority. As per Section 83 of the Act, the Government may, by notification, appoint any person, who shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, exercise the powers and perform the functions of the executive authority of a village panchayat. Section 84 of the Act contemplates the functions of executive authority. The executive authority shall carry into effect the resolutions of the village panchayat, control all the officers and servants of the village panchayat and discharge all the duties specifically imposed and exercise all the powers conferred on him and subject to all restrictions and conditions imposed, by or under the Act, exercise the executive power for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and he is directly responsible for the due fulfilment of the purposes thereof.

6. Therefore, as per Sections 83 and 84 of the Act, the executive power of the