Madras High Court
M.Uma Maheswari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 December, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.23288 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 10.01.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 11.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.(MD)No.23288 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.19719 of 2021
M.Uma Maheswari ... Petitioner
vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,
St.Fort George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Revenue Divisional Office,
Palani, Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned notice passed by the third respondent vide his
proceeding in Na.Ka.No.9012/2021/A7, dated 22.12.2021 and quash the
same as illegal.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23288 of 2021
For Petitioner :Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakathiran
Additional Additional General-III
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certioari to call
for the records relating to the notice issued by the third respondent in
proceedings, dated 28.12.2021 and to set aside the same.
2.The petitioner, M.Uma Maheswari, had been elected as
Chairperson of Gujiliamparai Panchayat Union, Dindigul District in
2019. The said Panchayat Union consists of 13 Ward Members. The
Councilors had presented a complaint to the second respondent/District
Collector, Dindigul, who in his proceedings, dated 03.12.2021, had
recommended the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani,
Dindigul District, to initiate proceedings under Section 212 of the Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23288 of 2021
3.A show cause notice was issued by the third respondent on
04.12.2021. The petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.22195 of 2021 and by
order, dated 15.12.2021, the petitioner was permitted to peruse the
documents in the office of the Panchayat in the presence of the second
respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani. The petitioner then
given a detailed explanation on 20.12.2021 requesting the third
respondent to drop the proceedings initiated under Section 212 of Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The petitioner then received a
representation, dated 21.12.2021 by V.Seerangan to the first and second
respondents seeking to initiate proceedings to disqualify the Councilor of
Ward No.9 under Section 38(3)(c) and under Section 41 of the Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Act 1994.
4.The petitioner then sought to keep in abeyance the proceeding
initiated under Section 212 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 till the
completion of the aforementioned disqualification proceedings.
However, the impugned notice was issued by the third respondent on
22.12.2021 calling for a meeting to be convened on 13.01.2022 and that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23288 of 2021
the agenda related to No Confidence Motion against the petitioner
herein. Questioning that notice, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
5.A counter affidavit had been filed by the respondents stating that
the proceedings of No Confidence Motion were issued in adherence to
the rules and provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. It was
stated that 11 Ward Members out of 13 Ward Members of the Panchayat
Union Council had signed a notice proposing to move a No Confidence
Motion against the petitioner and a copy of the statement of charges
along with the motion had also been delivered on the petitioner, as
required under Section 212 of the Act. The petitioner had submitted an
explanation on 20.12.2021. However, the third respondent had decided
to convene a meeting to place a No Confidence Motion for consideration
on 13.01.2022 by proceedings, dated 22.12.2021. The said notice was
issued under Section 212(7) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. It
was stated that there was no illegality in the procedure adopted and that
the Writ Petition should be dismissed and that there should a direction to
convene the meeting and the agenda to be discussed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23288 of 2021
6.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran,
learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
7.Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Counsel for the petitioner
primarily relied on Sub Section 2 of Section 212 of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Act, 1994 and stated that there was a failure to comply with
the requirements to serve a written statement of the charges in person to
the Revenue Divisional Officer by any two of the Ward Members of the
Panchayat Union Council, who signed the notice.
8.Section 212(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, is as
follows:
“212.(1) .......
(2) Written notice of intention to make the motion, signed
by members of the panchayat union council not less in number
than one-half of the sanctioned strength of the panchayat union
council, together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to
be made and a written statement of the charges against the vice-
chairman shall be delivered in person to the Revenue Divisional
Officer of the division by any two of the members of the
panchayat union council signing the notice.
(3)......”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23288 of 2021
9.A perusal of the records reveal that 11 Members of the Panchayat
Council had issued a notice, the subject of which was to bring a No
Confidence Motion against the petitioner/Chairperson of Gujiliamparai
Panchayan Union. It is an admitted fact that there are totally 13 Ward
Members. The first part of the aforementioned provision required that
such notice shall be made and signed by atleast 3/5th sanctioned strength.
Eleven members out of thirteen ward members is certainly by any
mathematical calculation more than the required three fifth.
10.It is the second portion of the aforementioned provision which
is insisted as being not complied by Mr.Mayilvahana Rajendran. This
stipulated that a written statement of the charges shall be delivered in
person to the Revenue Divisional Officer, in this case, the third
respondent, by any two of the Members of the Panchayat Union Council,
who signed the notice. The learned Counsel insisted that this compliance
had not been done.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23288 of 2021
11.The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on an order of the
learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10671 of 2010, dated
18.11.2010 in Valarmathi Chidambaram vs The District Collector,
Karur District and others. However, that judgment examined Section
207 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and the issue of grant of
personal hearing prior to passing of an order. An allied issue which was
also examined was whether the District Collector was the competent
authority. Those issues do not arise for consideration in the present case.
12.It is the contention of Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Additional
Advocate General that the meeting had been called for after requisite
procedure had been followed. The learned Additional Advocate General
pointed that the notice was signed by 11 Ward Members and calling for a
meeting to be convened to place as an agenda a No Confidence Motion
against the petitioner. It had been addressed to the Revenue Divisional
Officer at Palani in Dindigul District. It had been signed by the 11 Ward
Members. It is therefore, pointed by the learned Additional Advocate
General that the compliance of both the parts of Sub Section 2 of Section
212 of the Act, had been done, namely, more than 3/5th of the Members
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23288 of 2021
had signed the notice calling for such a meeting and it had actually
directly been addressed only to the Revenue Divisional Officer and had
been delivered to the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is therefore claimed
that the points made out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner will
have to be rejected by this Court.
13.I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced
and perused the documents available on record.
14.The petitioner is the Chairperson of Gujiliamparai Panchayat
Union. She was elected in the year 2019. There are 13 ward members of
the Panchayat Union. 11 of them had taken a decision to convene a
meeting to pass a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. This had
been addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer.
15.A careful perusal of Sub Section 2 of Section 212 of the Act
extracted above shows that 3/5th of the Ward Members must sign such a
notice. This requirement had been complied with. It had been further
stated that the statement of charges should be delivered in person by any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23288 of 2021
two of said Members to the Revenue Divisional Officer. In the notice
signed by 11 ward members, the necessity to pass such a No Confidence
Motion and the charges against the petitioner had been reduced in the
form of statement. This notice had been addressed only to the Revenue
Divisional Officer. Therefore, it had been delivered to the Revenue
Divisional Officer as compliance under Sub Section 2 of Section 212 of
the Act. A copy of this notice had been forwarded to the District
Collector, Dindigul. The District Collector had in turn forwarded the
same to the Revenue Divisional Officer.
16.In the notice impugned, the heading itself is with respect to the
notice given by the Ward Members calling for a meeting to pass a No
Confidence Motion against the petitioner. In the reference, the letter of
the District Collector is referred. The second reference is the notice
signed by 11 Ward Members. It is thus seen that the notice had been
signed by 11 Ward Members and addressed only to the Revenue
Divisional Officer primarily. Therefore, by that very act, the provisions
under Sub Section 2 of Section 212 of the Act stands complied with. The
procedure has not been violated. It is in accordance with the procedure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23288 of 2021
established by law.
17.I find no reason to interfere with the impugned notice. Let the
meeting proceed on 13.01.2022 at 11.00 am, as it is scheduled. The Writ
Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Index :Yes / No 11.01.2022
Internet :Yes
cmr
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,
St.Fort George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Revenue Divisional Office,
Palani, Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23288 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
cmr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.23288 of 2021
11.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
