O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned notices issued by the fourth respondent, dated 07.02.2022 and 15.02.2022. 2.The issue involved in this Writ Petition is whether the procedure contemplated for removal of a Chairman of a Panchayat Union Council under Section 207 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been followed or not.

3.Under the impugned notices, dated 07.02.2022 and 15.02.2022, issued by the fourth respondent under Section 207(3) of the Act, the petitioner, who is the Chairman of Kadamalaikundu-Mayiladumparai Panchayat Union, Theni District, was called upon to appear for the meeting of the Panchayat Council scheduled to be held on 25.02.2022 at about 11.00 am in respect of the representation given by ten (10) Panchayat Union Councillors of Kadamalaikundu-Mayiladumparai Panchayat Union, out of the total strength of 14 Councillors for taking action against the petitioner and for her removal as Chairman of Kadamalaikundu-Mayiladumparai Panchayat Union under Section 207 of the Act.

4.The petitioner was elected as the Chairman of Kadamalaikundu-

Mayiladumparai Panchayat Union. She belongs to AIADMK political party. According to the petitioner, after the DMK political party came into power, the Councillors belonging to DMK party started troubling her. According to the petitioner, a motion expressing want of confidence on the petitioner as Chairman of Kadamalaikundu-Mayiladumparai Panchayat Union was held on 23.07.2021. Since there was no quorum, as required under Section 212(3) of the Act, the fourth respondent dropped further proceedings against the petitioner by his order, dated

23.07.2021.

5.According to the petitioner, as per Section 212(4) of the Act, if the motion is not carried out for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion shall be received until the expiry of one year. As the Councillors did not succeed in their attempt to carry out no confidence motion against the petitioner, they have again preferred a complaint against the petitioner. On receiving the said complaint, the fourth respondent issued the impugned notices, dated 07.02.2022 and 15.02.2022 for convening a meeting under Section 207(3) of the Act, which according to the petitioner, is illegal as the fourth respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 207(1) and (2) of the Act.

6.It is the contention of the respondents that the Writ Petition is not maintainable on the following grounds:

(a)the impugned notices are challenged only on the ground that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 207 (1)(b) of the Act. According to the respondents, show cause notices were issued by the first respondent on 09.11.2021 and 29.11.2021 to the petitioner in compliance with Section 207(1)(b) of the Act. But, the petitioner refused to receive the notices as seen from the returned covers. Since explanation was not received from the petitioner, despite opportunity granted to her, the impugned notices under Section 207(3) of the Act came to be issued calling upon the petitioner to appear before the third respondent office for convening a meeting with the Council Members of the third respondent Panchayat Union on 25.02.2022.

(b)The fourth respondent issued the impugned notices only on the order of the first respondent. Since no explanation was given by the petitioner, despite several opportunities, the impugned notices came to be passed under Section 207(3) of the Act. According to the respondents, as per the provisions contained under Section 207(1)(b) of the Act, a representation was signed by 10 out of 14 elected Council members of the third respondent Panchayat Union and two Council Members of the third respondent Panchayat Union, Mr.B.Prabhakar, Councillor, 9th Ward and Mr.M.Machakalai, Councillor, 6th Ward, had presented the complaint against the petitioner before the first respondent on 05.08.2021 in person and the same was forw