SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 1514

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.
N.S. Ramasamy & Another
Versus
State rep. by its Secretary Rural & Panchayat Chennai & Others
W.P.(MD) Nos.13745, 13746, 16750 of 2012 & 286 & 287 of 2013
Decided on : 05-04-2013

Advocates Appeared:
R. Vijayakumar, V. Bharathidasan, Advocates, R. Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader.

Disqualification of members under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act is subject to the orders to be passed by the Government under Section 41, and the District Collector has the authority to suspend the resolution disqualifying the members.

Headnote:

Panchayat Disqualification - Disqualification of Members - Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994, Section 38, Section 41

Fact of the Case:

The members of Ambiligai Village Panchayat were disqualified from the membership of the Panchayat and were not permitted to attend the panchayat meeting. The challenge was to the order passed by the Panchayat and the refusal to permit them to attend the meeting.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the disqualification of members is subject to the orders to be passed by the Government under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. The District Collector was justified in suspending the resolution disqualifying the members, and the disqualified members should be permitted to attend the meeting of the Panchayat.

Issues: The core question was whether a member would suffer disqualification automatically in case of absence from the meeting of the Panchayat for a period of three consecutive months.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disqualification is subject to the orders to be passed by the Government under Section 41 of the Act, and the District Collector was justified in suspending the resolution. The disqualified members should be permitted to attend the meeting of the Panchayat.

Final Decision: The Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.13745 & 13746 of 2012 & 286 & 287 of 2013 are allowed, and the Writ Petition in W.P.No.16750 of 2012 is dismissed. The President, Ambiligai Panchayat is directed to permit the disqualified members to attend the meeting of the Panchayat.

Judgment :-

1. The Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.13745 & 13746 of 2012 as well as the subsequent Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.286 & 287 of 2013 are at the instance of the members of Ambiligai Village Panchayat, Ottanchathiram Panchayat Union, Dindigul and the challenge is to the order passed by the Panchayat, disqualifying them from the membership of Panchayat and the refusal to permit them to attend the panchayat meeting in spite of the suspension of resolution by the District Collector in his capacity as the Inspector of Panchayat.

2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.16750 of 2012 is at the instance of the Ambiligai Village Panchayat and the challenge is to the order passed by the District Collector dated 16th November 2011 suspending the resolution passed by the Village Panchayat, disqualifying the Petitioners In W.P.(MD) Nos.13745 & 13746 of 2012 from the membership of the village panchayat.

Background Facts:

W.P.(MD) Nos.13745, 13746 of 2012 & 286 & 287 of 2013:

3. The Petitioners were elected from ward Nos.4&6 respectively of Ambiligai Village Panchayat. The Petitioners were not permitted to take oath, resulting in filing Writ Petitions before this Court. It was only thereafter, they were permitted to take oath of office.

4. The husband of the Village Panchayat President unsuccessfully contested against the Petitioner in W.P.No.13745 of 2012. Since he was defeated, he wanted to take revenge against the Petitioner and the elected member of 6th ward . The local body convened a meeting on 28th December 2011 in the office of the Panchayat. Though the Petitioners reached the panchayat office well within the time, they were informed that the meeting was over. The Petitioners made a Complaint in this regard before the District Collector and the Block Development Officer. The Petitioners thereafter received a notice on 17th January 2012 intimating them that the Panchayat meeting will be conducted on 25th January 2012. Even though they reached the venue well in advance, they were informed that the meeting has already been conducted and resolutions were passed. The Petitioners submitted a detailed representation before the District Collector and the Block Development Officer requesting them to intervene in the matter so as to enable them to take part in the next meeting. The District Collector and the Block Development Officer deputed officials to oversee the next meeting. The Panchayat meeting was thereafter held on 22nd March 2012. The Petitioners were restrained by the husband of the Panchayat President and his men and therefore, they could not attend the meeting and sign the register. The Block Development Officer who was present as an independent officer during the council meeting, submitted a Report to the District Collector that the Petitioners failed to attend the meeting consecutively on three occasions. The Panchayat passed a resolution disqualifying the Petitioners from the membership of Panchayat. The resolution passed by the Panchayat on 18th May 2012 disqualifying the Petitoners was sent to the District Collector by the President of the Panchayat vide communication dated 25th May 2012. The District Collector in his capacity as the Inspector of Panchayats, passed a consequential order on 17th October 2012, disqualifying the Petitioners from the membership of village panchayat. The order 25th May 2012 and the consequential order dated 17th October 2012 are challenged in W.P.Nos.13745 & 13746 of 2012.

5. The District Collector, after amendment of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994, by Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 2008, suspended the resolution vide order dated 16th November 2012, pending decision by the Government under Section 41 of the Panchayat Act. The Petitioners thereafter called upon the Panchayat President to permit them to attend the meeting. Their request was rejected by the President of the Panchayat vide order dated 18th December 2012. The said order is under challenge in W.P.Nos.286 & 287 of 2013.













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top