The Tahsildar's role is limited to forwarding the explanation submitted by the Vice President to the Panchayat for consideration, and the simultaneous notice for convening the meeting was a statutory requirement.

ORDER :

[PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Impugned order in A1/6383/2022 dated 31.07.2023 of the 4th respondent herein and quash the same.]

The writ petition is filed challenging the notice issued by 4th respondent convening the meeting of Vengikkal Village Panchayat for consideration of 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner namely the Vice President of the Panchayat on 05.09.2023.

2. The petitioner is the elected Vice President of the above said Panchayat. According to the petitioner, all the Ward Members of the Vengikkal Village Panchayat except 6th Ward Member written a letter to the 4th respondent stating as if, the petitioner was not co-operating with the President of the Panchayat to carry out affairs of the Panchayat and requested the 4th respondent to move a 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 28.07.2023 calling upon her to submit an explanation with regard to the allegations against the petitioner. The said notice said to have been received by petitioner on 31.07.2023. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the 4th respondent on 05.08.2023 denying allegations against her. Simultaneously, the 4th respondent also issued the impugned notice calling the petitioner as well as other Ward Members of the Panchayat to attend the meeting on 05.09.2023 for consideration of 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthy, learned counsel representing Mr. R. Silambarasan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 211 (3) and (4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Panchayats Act' for brevity) on receipt of written representation of the required number of Members of Panchayat of their intention to move 'No Confidence Motion' against the Vice President, the 4th respondent shall serve the copy of the statement of charges against the Vice President along with notice of meeting and require the Vice President to give her reply to the charges within a week from the date of receipt of notice. After expiry of the period of notice, the 4th respondent is expected to convene a meeting for consideration of the motion, at the Office of the Village Panchayat. In the case on hand, the show cause notice of the 4th respondent dated 28.07.2023 was served on the petitioner only on 31.07.2023 and simultaneously, on the very same day, the impugned notice has been issued by the 4th respondent convening the meeting of the Panchayat without waiting for expiry of 7 days period as contemplated under Section 211 (4) of the Panchayats Act. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the 4th respondent is a clear violation of the procedure contemplated under Section 211 (3) read with Sub Section 4 of the Panchayats Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the meeting convened by the 4th respondent before expiry of 7 days for submitting the explanation to the show cause notice is bad in law. The learned counsel by taking this Court to Sections 205, 206 and 212 of the Panchayats Act, submitted that in all these provisions legislature made its intention clear that meeting shall be convened only after receipt of explanation to the show cause notice by employing the word “then”. However, in Section 211 Sub Section 4, the word “then” is conspicuous by its absence and the 4th respondent cannot take advantage of the same and convene the meeting even before expiry of the time for submitting reply to the charges.

4. In other words, the learned counsel submitted that the word then used in Sections 205 (3) and 212 (4) shall be imported into Section 211 (4) of the Panchayats Act and the same shall be interpreted accordingly. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the orders of thi