The District Collector must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing an opportunity to be heard before cancelling resolutions passed by the Panchayat, as mandated by Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

ORDER :

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The learned counsel for the petitioner started his arguments stating that this Court had not granting opportunity. Therefore, further opportunity had been granted to him for nearly 15 minutes to present his case both in English and Tamil. He had appeared through Video Conferencing and at the conclusion, the Court also satisfied itself that sufficient opportunity had given to the learned counsel.

2.The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorari seeking records of the 2nd respondent-the District Collector, Cuddalore in Na.Ka.No.A5/965/2013 dated 02.09.2024 and to quash the same.

3.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writ petitioner K.Krishnasamy, who claims to be the Union Councillor for Ward No.26 in Cuddalore Block and Cuddalore District stated that he had been elected as Union Councillor in the elections conducted on 27.12.2019 for Ward No.26 which included Vellakarai Panchayat and Kodukkanpalayam Panchayat. It is stated that the population comes around fifteen thousand people.

4.It had been stated that on 05.07.2024, the Cuddalore Union Panchayat had called for a meeting headed by the Union Chairman and fifty resolutions were placed before the Union Councillors. The resolutions were in respect of laying roads in fifty places. They were all unanimously approved by the Councillors including the Chair person. It had been contended when the resolutions were forwarded to the Government, the 2nd respondent - the District Collector, Cuddalore had, without following the principles of natural justice and without calling for any enquiry had passed the order which is impugned in the writ petition on 02.09.2024 in Na.Ka.No.A5/965/2024, cancelling the entire tender for laying of roads in the Villages. The District Collector had stated in the impugned order that there was misappropriation of funds and there was violation of rules. Questioning that particular order of the District Collector, the present writ petition has been filed.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner appeared through Video Conferencing and first pointed out the provision under Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and stated that before passing any order, it is imperative for the District Collector to issue notice and thereafter, provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and other members of the Panchayat and only thereafter could the order be passed. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the certificate issued by the Block Development Officer [BDO], wherein the BDO had stated that there are funds to an extent of Rs.3,29,50,168/- in the Panchayat Union at Cuddalore. Placing reliance on the said certificate issued by the BDO, the learned counsel insisted that since funds were available and since resolutions had been passed unanimously by the Panchayat, the amount available should be used to put into effect the said resolutions passed to lay roads. It was again stated that once lawful resolutions had been passed, the 2nd respondent cannot interfere with the same and cannot cancel the resolutions or the tenders which had been called for.

6.On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents, who had also received written instructions that in the said Panchayat, the general fund available as on 30.6.2024 was Rs.83,61,598/. It had been stated that with respect to the tenders floated by two earlier orders, amounts have not been paid to the renderers and there was a negative balance of Rs.4,64,93,195/- and it had been stated that unless those amounts are paid, further amounts cannot be sanctioned. It had been