Madras High Court

C. Tamizharasan vs The District Collector on 4 March, 2021

W.P.No.15343 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.03.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. PUGALENDHI

WP No.15343 of 2020
and WMP.No.19190 of 2020

C. Tamizharasan ... Petitioner
Vs.

1. The District Collector,
(Inspector of Panchayats)
Salem District, Salem.

2. The Block Development Officer,
Ayothipattinam Panchayat Union,
Salem District.

3. K.Nagaraj,
President
Kootathupatti Village Panchayat,
(Ayothipattinam Panchayat Union)
Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District.

4. S. Thamayanthi ...Respondents

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
entire records pertaining to the impugned order vide
Na.Ka.No.84/2020/A5, dated 14.10.2020 from the first respondent herein

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P.No.15343 of 2020

to quash the same and consequently permit him to sign in the cheques of
the Kootathupatti Village Panchayat along with the third respondent
herein in accordance with the Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayat Act, 1994.

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Gavaskar

For Respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai
Additional Govt.Pleader
for R1 & R2

ORDER

This writ petition is filed as against the order of the first

respondent/ the District Collector, (Inspector of Panchayats), Salem

District, Salem, taking away the cheque signing power of the petitioner

and entrusting the same to another person by the impugned order dated

14.10.2020.

2. The petitioner is an elected member of Kootathupatti Village

Panchayat of Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District and he has been elected as

the Vice President of the said Panchayat. As per the Section 188 (3) of

the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, he is entitled to sign in the

Panchayat cheques, along with the President of the Panchayat.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.15343 of 2020

3. The petitioner received a communication dated 14.08.2020 from

the second respondent requiring the petitioner and the President and

Ward Members to appear for an enquiry on 18.08.2020 at 11:30 a.m. to

enquire into the resolution passed by the Panchayat to assign the cheque

signing power to the fourth respondent by cancelling the power already

vested with the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the second

respondent for enquiy on 18.08.2020 and thereafter the impugned order

came to be passed by the first respondent on 14.10.2020 conferring the

cheque signing power to the fourth respondent.

4. Mr.L.Gavaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the

judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.36417 of 2007 in the case of

M.Ganapathy Vs The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat,

Dharmapuri District and others, submitted that the District Collector

has to act on the recommendation of the Block Development Officer and

he has to apply his mind independently to the facts of the case to arrive at

an unconventional conclusion after providing an opportunity of hearing

to the person likely to be affected. But the District Collector, who is the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.15343 of 2020

Inspector of Panchayat without providing an opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner has passed the impugned order.

5. Mr.Elumalai, learned Additional Government Pleader would

submit that though the petitioner was elected as a Ward Member of the

said Panchayat, since he is residing outside the Kootathupatti Village

Panchayat, he never appeared for the Panchayat meetings nor signed the

cheques and therefore the Panchayat finds very difficult even to meet out

the day today expenses. He further submitted that the staffs of the

Panchayat were not paid salary for more than six months in view of this

anomoly. To solve the issue, the Members of Koothathupatti Village

Panchayat Council, Ayodiapattinam Panchayat Union, Salem District

convened a meeting on 12.08.2020 and passed a resolution to change the

cheque signing power of the petitioner to some other member. Based on

the resolution, BDO issued notice to the petitioner and conducted an

enquiry on 18.08.2020 and sent his report to the District Collector.

Consequently, the District Collector passed the impugned order under

Section 203 of the Panchayat Act on the Emergency Powers conferred

with the Collector.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.15343 of 2020

6. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival

submissions made and also perused the materials produced before this

Court.

7. The petitioner is an elected member of the Panchayat and has

also been elected as the Vice President of the Panchayat. It appears that

the petitioner has failed to attend the Panchayat meeting for some time

and therefore, a resolution has been passed by the Panchayat to change

the cheque signing power. Based on this resolution, the Block

Development Officer has also conducted an enquiry and sent his report to

the District Collector. Considering the necessity for the Panchayat that

the salary to the staffs have not been paid more than six months, the

District Collector has invoked his Emergency power under Section 203

of the Panchayat Act and passed the impugned order taking away the

cheque signing power from the petitioner/Vice President of

Koothathupatti Panchayat and conferred the same with the fourth

respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.15343 of 2020

8. On a similar issue, this Court, in W.P.No.36417 of 2007 dated

12.06.2009 in M.Ganapathy Vs The District Collector cum Inspector of

Panchayat, Dharmapuri District and others held as follows:

12. This Court in many of its decisions has settled the principle that before cancellation of power of the Vice President to sign the cheques as a joint signatory, the District Collector has to act on the recommendation of the Block Development Officer and he has to apply his mind independently to the facts of the case to arrive at an unconventional conclusion. In the case on hand, the District Collector, who is the Inspector of Panchayat has to come out with an independent conclusion as to whether the resolution was passed in accordance with law and he has to apply his mind to arrive at a reasonable conclusion after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is seen that the District Collector has not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before approving the resolution recommended by the Panchayat. Therefore, there is violation of the principles of natural justice.

9. The case on hand is identical to the case cited supra. Therefore,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.15343 of 2020

in the light of the above decision this writ petition is allowed and the

impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 14.10.2020 is set

aside with a direction to the petitioner to attend the meetings in future,

without fail. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is

also closed.

04.03.20201 Internet : Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order dpq

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.15343 of 2020

B. PUGALENDHI, J.