IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T.AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Purumalla Srinvas – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No.4024 of 2021
Decided on : 09-03-2021
Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 - S. 37(1) - Post of Sarpanch - Show cause notices for removal by District collector - Petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing nor was put on notice about the alleged irregularities-Whether notices are illegal without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court: In all the cases the delinquent was given show cause notice before proceeding and the delinquent submitted his explanation thereto. In the case on hand, the petitioner was given show cause notice with a predetermined and conclusive decision that he committed certain fraud or irregularities. Therefore, they are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this case. This court has no hesitation to say that the action of the respondents against the petitioner is like witch hunting.
Result: Writ Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner assails the Notices No.A5/2346/2021-PW-2, Dated 29.01.2021 and A5/2346/2020-PW-1, Dated 24.11.2020 purporting to be a notice issued u/s 37 (1) of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, of the District Collector, Karimnagar, asking the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from the post of Sarpanch, Bommakal Gram Panchayat, and to quash the same as the notices are illegal without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice.
2. The petitioner asserts that he is Sarpanch of Bommakkal Gram Panchayat of Karimangar Mandal. His case is that initially a show cause notice dated 23.10.2020 was issued to the petitioner under Section 37 (1) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for short ‘the Act’) asking him to give his explanation as to why he should not be removed from the post of Sarpanch, which notice was assailed in Writ Petition No.19772 of 2020 wherein this Court quashed the said notice by order dated 10.11.2020, leaving it open to the respondents to take action if any in accordance with law.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with two identical notices dated 24.11.2020 and 29.01.2021 by quoting a report of Three Member Committee dated 16.10.2020 and also a letter addressed by the Station House Officer, Karimnagar, dated 20.10.2020 to which the petitioner gave replies on 10.12.2020 and 09.02.2021.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that both the impugned notices were predetermined notices and that he was not put on notice about the irregularities if any on his part and that the Three Member Committee submitted the report behind his back. It is the further case of the petitioner that the report of the Three Member Committee discloses that an enquiry was conducted wherein oral and documentary evidence was adduced. But he was not given an opportunity to confront the witnesses. Hence the Writ Petition.
5. The District Gram Panchayat Officer, Karimangar the 4th respondent herein, filed counter, inter alia, contending that the people of the Gram Panchayat submitted several complaints against the petitioner and several news items were also published in local news papers on the irregularities committed by the petitioner being Sarpanch of Bommakkal village. Basing on the same, the District Collector appointed a Three Member Committee to look into the said irregularities and that the Committee having conducted an enquiry into those complaints submitted a report to the District Collector on 16.10.2020. He further submitted that the report of the Committee disclosed that the petitioner committed several irregularities and is guilty of misconduct as he took bribes from the villagers for granting permission to construct house by forging the signature of the Panchayat Secretary. The petitioner was also arrested in several criminal cases and was in jail for a considerable period of time. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that the District Collector prima facie opined that the petitioner committed certain irregularities and illegalities which attract the provisions of Section 37 of the Act and therefore initiated action against the petitioner for his removal from the post of Sarpanch and accordingly issued the impugned notice dated 24.11.2020 under Section 37 (1) of the Act. It is further submitted that the District Collector while initiating action under Section 37 (1), has issued another notice to the petitioner under Section 37 (5) of the Act calling for his explanation by duly furnishing the copies of the preliminary report submitted by the Committee dated 16.10.2020. It is further submitted that the petitioner though submitted his explanation on 15.02.2021, pending consideration of the explanation, approached this court and filed this Writ Petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not furnished the material allegedly evidencing his involvement in illegal acts thereby warranting his removal from the post
B.Chandrasekhar and Ors. Vs. Govt. of A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and Ors.
Quash of show cause notices - No show cause notice before proceedings - Predetermined and conclusive decision.
Sarpanch, aggrieved by an order of removal to be passed by the 1st Respondent under Section and 37(5) of the Act or by an intimation under Sub Section 2 of Section 35 of the Act, within 30 days from ....
Removal of a Sarpanch under Section 249 requires strict adherence to natural justice principles, including provision of enquiry reports, or risk invalidation of the order.
Point of law: It is thus well settled that writ petition should normally not be entertained against mere issuance of show cause notice. In the present case no show cause notice was even issued when t....
The judgment established the principle that the removal of an elected representative under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, must adhere to the quasi-judicial nature of the power an....
Removal of elected officials requires adherence to principles of natural justice, including providing reasons for decisions and allowing for rebuttal of charges, failing which the order is unsustaina....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned notices were issued following the procedures contemplated under Section 207 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch was illegal and beyond the scope of Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.
In exercise of discretionary power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court might interfere with administrative matters only if the decision is violative of fundamenta....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.