JUDGMENT

Common prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent issued in Na.Ka.No.A3/4640/2021, dated 27.12.2021 and the consequential notice in Na.Ka.No.A3/4640/2021, dated 04.01.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to conduct an enquiry into the complaint made by the petitioners on 29.12.2021 before proceeding with the enquiry for “No Confidence Motion” against the petitioners under Section 212 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994.)

1. The common prayer sought for herein in both these writ petitions is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent issued in Na.Ka.No.A3/4640/2021, dated 27.12.2021 and the consequential notice in Na.Ka.No.A3/4640/2021, dated 04.01.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to conduct an enquiry into the complaint made by the petitioners on 29.12.2021 before proceeding with the enquiry for “No Confidence Motion” against the petitioners under Section 212 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994.

2. These two writ petitions have been filed by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Nallur Panchayat Union Council, Cuddalore District. Against these two petitioners, 14 out of 21 Panchayat Union Council members have given a notice for no-confidence motion under Section 212(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 on 22.12.2021. Based on this notice for no-confidence motion, having receipt of the same, the third respondent has issued a notice under sub-section (3) of Section 212, seeking to show cause within seven days period on 27.12.2021. Having receipt of the said notice dated 27.12.2021, the petitioners separately have given their reply on 31.12.2021 which was received by the third respondent through the fourth respondent.

3. Having receipt of the reply from the petitioners, in order to consider the said motion for no-confidence against them, the third respondent, under sub-section (4) of Section 212 of the Act, has convened a meeting of the Panchayat Union Council under communication dated 04.01.2022, under which, the meeting is proposed to be conducted on 20.01.2022 at 11.00 a.m. ie., tomorrow.

4. Challenging these two communications, i.e., communication, dated 27.12.2021 and the notice dated 04.01.2022, these petitioners have filed these respective writ petitions with the prayer sought for herein.

5. Heard Mr.C.Vigneshwaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who raised a point that, even in the notice for no-confidence given by the councillors on 22.12.2021, though it was claimed that 14 out of 21 councillors had signed, two councillors have not signed and therefore, based on such notice given or said to have been given by the councillors, the third respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer cannot take up the no-confidence motion for consideration and decision, for which, the meeting ought not to have been fixed as has been fixed through a communication dated 04.01.2022. Therefore, on that ground itself the impugned proceedings are vitiated and the proposed meeting cannot be conducted as that would go against the procedure contemplated under Section 212 of the Act. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks the indulgence of this Court against the impugned communication.

6. However, Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that, once 3/5th of the total members of the Council have given a notice for no-confidence motion, under sub-section (2) of Section 212, after receipt of the same, having verified such notice, it is the duty of the third respondent, RDO, to proceed in accordance with the procedure contemplated under sub-sections (2), (3) as well as (4) of Section 212 of the Act and accordingly under Sub-section (3), a notice has been issued giving seven days time to reply