The President of the Village Panchayat had the authority to issue cheques for payment from the Village Panchayat Fund based on the unanimous resolution passed in the Village Panchayat, and the administrative sanctions and approvals supported the President's actions.

1. This writ petition was filed by Krishnan challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by the Block Development Officer(Village Panchayat), Mailam Panchayat Union, Villupuram District in Na.Ka.A1/2159/07 dated 15.02.2008, to quash the same with the further direction to the respondents 2 and 4 to drop further action in recovering the amount from the petitioner.

2. (i) Mr. K. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was the President of Vizhukkam Panchayat union during the period from 01.04.2006 to 21.10.2006. During his tenure as the President there was no complaint whatsoever from any quarter against him in respect of discharge of his duties as village President. Whileso, the District Collector, Villupuram District-the 2nd respondent by proceedings bearing No.A7/11309/05-02 dated 25.3.2006 has given an administrative sanction for digging a borewell and fixing a motor therein. That apart, administrative sanction was also given for fixing a motor in the well dug in the open place of the Vizhukkam Colony by allotting a sum of Rs.94,000/- to the said Vizhukkam Village under the 12th Finance Commission Subsidy Scheme. The only work required to be done by the President under the scheme was to call for tenders by passing a resolution in the village Panchayat. The petitioner rightly called for tenders for allotting the above work and two persons, by name, Selvam and Elumalai had given their tender forms. Since Selvam has quoted lesser price for completing the work, his tender was accepted. Subsequently, the Block Development Officer, Mailam also in his proceedings dated 12.09.2006 has given instructions to execute the abovesaid work as well. After the completion of the work by the said contractor-Selvam as early as September 2006, when demand was also made by him for the advance amount of Rs.75,000/-, the petitioner as the President convened the village Panchayat on 15.9.2006 and passed an unanimous resolution to give 60% of the amount claimed by the contractor. Only on the basis of the resolution the petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000/-to the contractor Selvam. In the meanwhile, the new Panchayat President sworn in and therefore, the charge was handed over to the new Panchayat President. After the charge was handed over to the new Panchayat President, even though a sum of Rs.50,000/- payable to the Contractor-Selvam was approved by the Deputy Block Development Officer in his proceedings dated 27.10.2006, that was also rightly audited by the Auditor by Audit, the petitioner received a communication from the 4th respondent-Block Development Officer, Mailam Panchayat Union, alleging that the petitioner has not obtained prior permission from the fourth respondent to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/-. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come to this Court.

(ii) It was also the case of the petitioner that when the District Collector under the 12th Finance Commission Subsidy Scheme has allotted a sum of Rs.94,000/- to the petitioner’s village, namely, Vizhukkam, only after passing the resolution in the village Panchayat on 15.9.2006 deciding to give 60% of the amount claimed by the contractor and when the petitioner has issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/-in the name of contractor Selvam, it is improper on the part of the 4th respondent to find fault with the petitioner for having issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of Selvam who was a contractor and completed the work also in September 2006.

(iii) It was further argued that when the Deputy Block Development Officer also in his proceedings dated 27.10.2006 has approved the payment of Rs.50,000/- for having executed the work of fixing a motor for the bore well, the 4th respondent cannot issue the impugned order.

(iv) Finally, it was submitted that when the account was also audited by the Audit Department, followed by the approval granted by the Deputy Block Development Officer, no fault can be found against the pe