Madras High Court
K.Lakshmi Kailasam vs The District ... on 26 July, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 17.12.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.14349 of 2021
K.Lakshmi Kailasam ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats,
District Collector's Office Campus,
Pudukottai District.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District.
4.The Block Development Officer,
Arimalam Block,
Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.290/2020/A3(Oo), dated 26.07.2021, quash the
same as illegal and consequently, to direct the first respondent to permit
the petitioner alone to sign the cheque temporarily pending consideration
to change the cheque signing power permanently by considering the
petitioner's representation, dated 16.06.2021.
For Petitioner :Mr.K.Baalasundaram
For R1 to R3 :Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 :Mr.A.K.Manickkam
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified
Mandamus seeking interference with the order of the first
respondent/District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats, Pudukottai
District, dated 26.07.2021 and to set aside the same and consequently, to
direct the petitioner alone to sign the cheques temporarily pending
consideration of the representation, dated 16.06.2021.
2.In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the
petitioner/President, Vaalaramanickam Village Panchayat, Arimalam
Block, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District, stated that she had
contested successfully in the elections for the post of President in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
year 2019. The Panchayat consists of 9 wards and one K.M.Udaiyappan,
who had been selected as Ward Member from the 6th ward, was elected as
Vice President. It was stated that K.M.Udaiyappan, refused to sign the
cheques. This was questioned by other ward members. It was stated that
the ward member of the 3rd ward, P.Laksmi and the Vice President,
K.M.Udaiyappan, had indulged in wordy quarrels relating to the
implementation of schemes during the Gramasabha meeting. It was
stated that this led to the registration of a FIR in Cr.No.236 of 2020 by
K.Pudupatti Police Station against K.M.Udaiyappan and others. There
were further altercations. It was also stated that K.M.Udaiyappan was
incarcerated in prison also.
3.There was a special Gramasabha meeting held on 19.08.2020 and
a resolution was passed to change the cheque signing power from
K.M.Udaiyappan to another ward member. The said resolution was
forwarded to the first respondent/District Collector/Inspector of
Panchayat. However, the first respondent stated that a fresh meeting
should be convened and a resolution should be passed giving the name of
the ward member to whom the cheque signing power should be given.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
The Gramasabha meeting was therefore proposed to be held on
18.09.2020. It was deferred for various reasons and finally, held on
09.11.2020 and the cheque signing power was transferred from
K.M.Udaiyappan to P.Lakshmi.
4.In the meanwhile, the first respondent issued a proceedings dated
09.06.2021 intimating the petitioner to expedite the panchayat related
activities within seven days by signing the cheques. The petitioner gave
a reply on 16.06.2021 that any one of the other ward members may be
permitted to sign the cheques along with her. However, the impugned
order was then passed suspending the cheque signing power of the
petitioner. Questioning that impugned order, the present Writ Petition
had been filed.
5.It is stated that notice was not given to the petitioner before
suspending her right to sign the cheques. Opportunity was not granted to
her. It was therefore stated that the impugned order should be interfered
with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
6.It is significant to point out that K.M.Udaiyappan, against whom
allegations were made, had not been impleaded as party to the Writ
Petition.
7.The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it had
been stated that there were allegations made by the petitioner/President
and by the Vice President against each other complaining non-
cooperation. This affected the smooth functioning of the Village
Panchayat. They both refused to sign the cheques towards the
expenditures incurred in the Panchayat. Therefore, the salary of the
Panchayat Secretary, Sanitary Workers, Over Head Tank Operators
remained unpaid from July 2020. Further, other expenditures, like
electricity charges and water tank charges of the Panchayt were not paid
for more than one year.
8.It had been stated that the first respondent had issued a notice on
09.06.2021 under Section 204(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,
1994, calling upon both the President and the Vice President to sign the
cheques towards the expenditure. The Panchayat Secretary had prepared
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
the cheques and payment advises to be signed jointly by the President
and the Vice President. The petitioner refused to sign the cheques. The
Vice President signed the cheques.
9.The Writ Petitioner had given a reply to the notice making
allegations against the Vice President. The request of the petitioner to
permit her alone to sign the cheques is not feasible for consideration.
The resolution was not supported by majority of the ward members. In
order to ensure the smooth functioning of the Panchayat, the cheque
signing power of the petitioner was therefore, temporarily withdrawn by
invoking Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. The
fourth respondent/Block Development Officer was directed to sign the
cheques along with the Vice President until further orders. It had been
stated that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was put on
notice and she also replied. The explanation was also considered. It was
claimed that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The
cheque signing power was suspended only as a temporary arrangement
and it was therefore stated that the Writ Petition should be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
10.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.K.Baalasundharan, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 and
Mr.A.K.Manikkam, learned Counsel for the fourth respondents.
11.The learned Counsel for the petitioner took the Court through
the facts of the case and raised allegations against the conduct of the Vice
President, K.M.Udaiyappan and stated that he indulged in creating
commotion among the members, which led to the registration of a FIR
against him and he was also detained in prison. Learned Counsel stated
that a resolution had been passed to change the cheque signing power
from the Vice President, K.M.Udaiyappan to P.Lakshmi, Member of the
3rd ward. He stated that a notice had been issued to the petitioner on
09.06.2021 directing her to sign the cheques along with
K.M.Udaiyappan. However, a reply was given by the petitioner. But,
quite abruptly, the cheque signing power of the petitioner was withdrawn
by the respondents. The learned Counsel assailed the impugned order
claiming that it had been passed in violation of principles of natural
justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
12.The learned Counsel relied on a judgment of this Court reported
in (2005) 1 MLJ 520, in the case of the President, Kandipedu
Panchayat, Katpadi Panchayat Union, Vellor District, vs.M.Kothanda
Reddy, The District Collector, Vellor District and others, wherein, the
Division Bench of this Court had observed in a case where violation of
principles of natural justice was evident since the District Collector had
not denied the specific allegation that enquiry was not conducted and had
therefore, interfered with the order of the District Collect and had
remanded the matter back to the District Collector to pass fresh orders
after giving opportunity to the petitioner therein.
13.The learned Counsel also relied on a judgment of this Court in
W.A.(MD)No.579 of 2010 in the case of C.Ashokkumar, vs The District
Collector/Inspector of Panchayats, Dindigul and others, wherein, a
Division Bench of this Court had held as follows:
“8.The idea behind the issuance of notice in any
proceeding is to put on notice as to what are imputations against
the person concerned. The first respondent, who is discharging a
statutory power vested in him under Section 203 of the Act, is
bound to act in a reasonable manner expected of from a statutory
power, especially while dealing with a right of an elected
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
representative of a local body. Issuing a notice need not be
treated as a mere ritual or an empty formality. By the impugned
order, the first respondent has taken away a statutory power
conferred under Section 188(3) of the Act, which reads as
follows;-
"Subject to such general control as the village panchayat may
exercise from time to time, all cheques for payment from Village
Panchayat Fund shall be signed jointly by the President and
Vice-President and in the absence of the President or Vice-
president, as the case may be, by the Vice-president or the
President and another member authorized by the Village
Panchayat at a meeting in this behalf."
9. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pugazhendran,
President, Brammapuram Village Panchayat, Katpadi Panchayat
Union, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District vs. B.G.Balu and
others reported in 2005 (1) LW 506 : 2005 (1) CTC 545
considered the importance of issuing notice and held that before
taking any action against the Vice - President of Village
Panchayat either under Section 203 or under Section 206 of the
Act, person concerned should be given a notice, as any adverse
order passed either under Section 203 or under Section 206 of
the Act will have a civil consequence divesting the statutory
powers.”
Placing strong reliance on the aforesaid observations, the learned
Counsel stated that the Writ Petition should be allowed.
14.Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader
however supported the impugned order stating that there were allegations
and counter allegations raised between the petitioner and the Vice
President and all the activities of the Panchayat had come to a stand still.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
It was contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the
cheques were placed before the petitioner herein for her signature but she
had refused to sign the same. However, the Vice President had signed
the cheques. Left with no other alternative, since salaries were due and
payable from July 2020 and electricity charges were also not paid for
more one year, the first respondent, following due process and after
examining the reply given by the petitioner to the notice issued, had
withdrawn the cheque signing power of the petitioner temporarily and
had allotted the said power to the fourth respondent/Block Development
Officer. It was therefore, stated that there was no violation of principles
of natural justice.
15.I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced
and the perused documents available on record.
16.This is a case, in which both the petitioner/President and the
Vice President have let down the confidence and trust reposed in them by
the people, who elected them. The petitioner herein was elected as a
President. The Vice President was elected by the ward members. They
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
both have a duty to the public. They however took it upon themselves to
engage in personal quarrels raising allegations which not only were
childish in nature but also demeaned their status as President and Vice
President respectively.
17.This Court will necessarily have to express in very strong words
its frustration at the object of the Panchayat system being defeated by this
act of levelling allegations and counter allegations against each other by
the petitioner and the Vice President. This should not have happened. It
had happened. The petitioner will have to face necessary consequences.
No orders can be passed against the Vice President, since the petitioner
had consciously for reasons best known her not impleaded the said Vice
President as a party to the Writ Petition.
18.It is seen that notice had been issued to the petitioner on
09.06.2021 by the first respondent/District Collector/Inspector of
Panchayat. In the said notice, the first respondent had drawn attention to
earlier notices, dated 25.03.2021 and 18.05.2021. The copies of those
notices have not been filed by the petitioner herein. The gist of those
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
notices have been re-produced in the notice dated 09.06.2021. It had
been stated that from July 2020, the salary to Village Panchayat staff and
workers had not been paid. Electricity charges had been not paid. Water
tank charges had not been paid. These were not paid because the
President and the Vice President had not jointly come forward to sign the
cheques towards such expenditures. It had also been stated that
therefore, the entire activities of the Panchayat had come to a stand still.
It was therefore stated that within seven days, the salaries and the water
charges and the electricity charges should be paid by signing the cheques.
19.The petitioner should have realised that the first respondent was
calling upon her to discharge official duty. If the petitioner did not
comply or expressed reluctance to comply with the same, then the
petitioner loses her right to continue as the President. The cheques were
placed in front of the petitioner. She refused to sign them. The Vice
President alone signed the cheques. The petitioner had therefore
deliberately failed to discharge the official duty expected of her. I
wonder whether the petitioner would survive for more than one year
without receiving any remuneration or salary, if she had been in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
employment. The petitioner had simply no thought for the plight of those
employees, who had not been paid salary only because of her personal
vengeance or altercations against the Vice President.
20.The judgments referred by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner reiterated that the principles of natural justice should be
followed. In this case, the President had been issued with specific notice
dated 09.06.2021 with specific reference to Section 204 of the Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The petitioner should have realised and
should have voluntarily come forward to sign the cheques. On the other
hand, she sent a reply raising allegations against the Vice President. She
can very well file a separate complaint against the Vice President but
should have ensured that her personal vendetta did not interfere with
discharge of her official work. The allegations against her is that she did
not sign the cheques. This has been established and also admitted by her.
She has to face the consequences. As stated, both the judgments of the
Division Bench referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioner only
envisage the following of principles of natural justice. In this case, it
was followed. Notice was issued. Opportunity was granted. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
opportunity was not taken. The petitioner did not come forward to sign
the cheques. The cheque signing power had therefore been withdrawn.
21.I find no fault in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
Index :Yes / No 06.01.2022
Internet :Yes
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
To
1.The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats,
District Collector's Office Campus,
Pudukottai District.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District.
4.The Block Development Officer,
Arimalam Block,
Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
cmr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.17492 of 2021
06.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
