1. The Petitioner has focused the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying for issuance of an order by this Court calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in reference Na.Ka.No.63259/2011/Pa.Thi.2 dated 02.01.2012 passed by the 1st Respondent and to quash the same. Further, she has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the 1st Respondent to permit her to continue in service in Pasuvapatti Village Panchayats, Chennimalai Union, Erode District.

2. It comes to be known that the Petitioner by impugned order Na.Ka.No.63259/2011/ Pa.Thi.2 dated 02.01.2012 was transferred by the 1st Respondent/District Collector, Erode to Vilakethi Panchayat, Modakurichi Union, Erode District, based on administrative interest. Further, the concerned Block Development Officer was directed to send details in regard to relieving of the Petitioner and taking charge of the position, etc.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned order of transfer dated 02.01.2012 passed by the 1st Respondent/District Collector as against the Petitioner is an unlawful and illegal one because of the simple reason that the same is contrary to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the ingredients of Section 104(1) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, categorically points out that 'Any officer or servant of a Village Panchayats may be transferred to the service of any Panchayats Union Council or any other village Panchayats by the Inspector. Provided that no officer or servant shall be so transferred except after consulting the commissioner or the executive authority concerned'.

5. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects an argument that there was no consultation of the Commissioner or the Executive Authority prior to passing of the impugned transfer order dated 02.01.2012 in respect of the Petitioner effected by the 1st Respondent and in fact, the said Transfer Order is vitiated for non-compliance of the ingredients of Section 104(1) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

6. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner reliance on the Division Bench of this Court in C.ALAGIRISAMY NAIDU V. THE COLLECTOR OF MADURAI DISTRICT AND ANOTHER, 1981 (1) MLJ at Page 3, wherein it is categorically laid down as follows:

"The first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 60 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, clearly contemplated the concerned two Panchayat Union Councils being consulted before the transfer is effected. Simply because the power of the Government under section 60(2) had been delegated to the Collector, the requirement of the first proviso could not be dispensed with. There being no power other than the one conferred by section 60(2), the requirement of consultation must be complied with whether the Government exercised the power themselves or some other officer by virtue of the delegation by the Government exercised that power."

7. Also, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to a word 'Consult' [vide P.Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon] wherein, it is mentioned as follows:

"Consult. 'Consult implies a conference of two or more persons or the impact of two or more minds bought about in respect of a topic with a view to evolve a correct or at least a satisfactory solution. It must be directed to the essential points of the subject under discussion and enable the consultor to consider the pros and cons before coming to a decision. The consultation may be between an uninformed person and an expert or between two experts (1947)2 All ER 496 Ref. R.Pushpam v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 Mad 392.

Shorter "Oxford English Dictionary, gives a definition of the verb 'to consult as "to ask advice of, seek counsel from." The essence of consultation is the communication of a genuine invitation, extended with a receptive mind, to give advice. If the invitation is once received, it matters not that i