Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A. SELVAM & T. MATHIVANAN, JJ.
V. Sethuraman – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government & Others – Respondents
W.A. (MD) No. 115 of 2014
Decided On : 20-02-2015
Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 - Section 212(13) - Patents Act - Section 77 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Election process – Quash of order - No confidence motion - Removal of Chairman - Appellant herein as petitioner has filed Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department passed by first respondent and quash same and also for directing first respondent to notify alleged removal of Chairman of Panchayat Union under Section 212(13) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 on basis of report submitted by third respondent under Section 212(3) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 - Averments made in petition are that Panchayat Union consists of Wards and Members have been elected in election held and one has been elected as Chairman of Panchayat Union - Chairman has not cared about welfare of general public and he acted against them and consequently a representation has been sent to Revenue Divisional Officer third respondent herein to take necessary action - Third respondent has failed to take any action - Another representation has been given to third respondent whereby so many charges have been leveled against Chairman – Held, Entire argument advanced on side of appellant petitioner is based upon word shall found in Section 212(13) of said Act - It is true that in said section word shall is used - But at same time Court cannot belittle provision of Section 219 of said Act - As per provision of Section 219 Government is having undeterred power to take action with regard to legality or propriety of order or any proceeding passed or submitted by Inspector District Collector or any other authorized officer - Learned counsel appearing for appellant petitioner has repeatedly contended that since no confidence motion has had requisite support as per word shall mentioned in Section 212(13) Government is not having any other option except to issue notification for removal of Chairman or Vice Chairman of Council - It is mentioned in so many places that word shall mentioned in said section denotes mandatory - But at same time Court cannot come to a conclusion that Government is not having power to look into legality or propriety of proceedings made in respect of no confidence motion in view of section 219 of said Act - To put it in short Government cannot act as a mute spectator nor observe complete obmutescence – Therefore this Court is of considered view that by way of invoking provision of Section 219 of said Act Government is having undeterred power to look into legality or propriety of proceedings submitted by third respondent - It is mentioned earlier that third respondent even without looking into correctness of information furnished by his officer with regard to status for reasons best known to him has submitted so-called letter to Government - Therefore it is quite clear that on basis of first discrepancy mentioned this Court is of view that the same is not liable to be quashed - Single Judge after considering factual background of present proceedings and also gravity of mistakes committed by third respondent has rightly dismissed petition - In view of foregoing narration of both factual and legal premise this Court has not found any acceptable force in contentions put forth on side of appellant petitioner and in fact contentions put forth on side of appellant petitioner have not impinged detailed order passed by Single Judge - Writ Appeal is dismissed
A. Selvam, J.
1. Challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the order dated 22.01.2014 passed in Writ Petition (MD) No. 11223 of 2013 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. The appellant herein as petitioner has filed Writ Petition (MD) No.11223 of 2013 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to G.O.(D)No.312, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-4) Department dated 03.07.2013 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and also for directing the first respondent to notify the alleged removal of Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union under Section 212(13) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 on the basis of the report dated 28.03.2013 submitted by the third respondent under Section 212(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
3. The averments made in the petition are that Usilampatti Panchayat Union consists of 13 Wards and Members have been elected in the election held on 29.10.2011 and one T.R.Palpandi has been elected as Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union. The Chairman has not cared about the welfare of general public and he acted against them and consequently a representation has been sent to Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, third respondent herein, to take necessary action. The third respondent has failed to take any action. On 04.02.2013, another representation has been given to the third respondent, whereby so many charges have been levelled against the Chairman. On 14.02.2013 the third respondent has sent a copy of charges to the Chairman. On receipt of charges, the Chairman has submitted his explanation to the third respondent. On 02.03.2013, the third respondent has issued notice to all Councillors in terms of Section 212(4) of the Tamilnadu Panchayats Act, 1994, wherein it is stated that a meeting is going to be conducted on 28.03.2013 to decide the issue of no confidence motion against the Chairman. After receipt of the said notice, the said Chairman has filed Writ Petition(MD)No.4681 of 2013 by way of challenging the same and no interim order has been passed in the said Writ Petition. On 28.03.2013, as scheduled, the third respondent has conducted meeting for no confidence motion and all the Councillors including Chairman and Vice Chairman are present in the office of the fourth respondent. The Chairman and one Councillor by name M.Pechiammal have raised their objections for conducting meeting on the ground that Writ Petition filed by Chairman is pending. Since the Chairman has not produced any interim order, the third respondent has conducted the proceedings as per notice and 11 Councillors have raised their hands in support of no confidence motion and on the basis of no confidence motion, the third respondent has submitted a letter to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayatraj in Na.Ka.No.979/2013/B1 dated 27.03.2013 and on the basis of letter dated 27.03.2013 on 10.06.2013, the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayatraj in R.O.C.No.979/2013/B1, has called for a report from the third respondent with regard to discrepancies found in the letter dated 27.03.2013 and accordingly, the third respondent has submitted a detailed explanation dated 10.06.2013. On the basis of letter dated 27.03.2013 and explanation dated 10.06.2013, the Principal Secretary to Government, first respondent herein has passed the impugned G.O(D)No.312, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-4) Department dated 03.07.2013 and thereby set aside the entire proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti Division, Madurai District and in order to quash the same and also for directing the first respondent to notify removal of Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union under Section 212(13) of the Tamilnadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides and upon perusing the relevant records has dismissed the petition.
5. Before
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
