Madras High Court
S.Meenatchi vs The Additional Collector ... on 20 April, 2022
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD)No. 359 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD) Nos. 3668 & 3669 of 2022
S.Meenatchi .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Additional Collector (Development),
District Rural Development Agency,
Dindigul.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayat),
Dindigul.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Batlagundu Panchayat Union,
Batlagundu, Dindigul District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dindigul District.
5.Tahsildar,
Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.
6.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Viruveedu Police Station,
Dindigul District.
7.The Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Commissionerate of Land Reforms,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/17
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
8.M/s.F.Robin Power Solutions Private Limited,
Rep, by its General Manager, S.Johnson,
6/192, Sf.No.401/3A1, Combaipatty Village,
Main Road Chinnupatti, Reddiyapatti (PO),
Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 01.04.2022 made in W.P.(MD) No. 3148 of
2022.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Surendran
For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
for R1, R2, R4 to R7
Mr.M.Ajmal Khan,
Senior Counsel for R8
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 01
April 2022 recorded on W.P(MD) No.3148 of 2022. This appeal is by
the writ petitioner.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner/appellant has
submitted that, the relief sought in the writ petition ought to have
been granted by learned Single Judge, since the petitioner being the
President of the Village Panchayat is vested with the powers of
taking action against the eighth respondent which she had done and
therefore, interference therein by the respondents State Authorities
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
in the form of orders / advisory dated 03.02.2022 and 07.02.2022
was without authority of law and illegal and was in violation of
principles of natural justice and therefore the same ought to have
been set aside by learned Single Judge.
3. It is noted that, learned advocate for the appellant /
writ petitioner has extensively taken this Court through the various
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and has also
relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court recorded
on W.P(MD)No.6004 of 2007. It is submitted that, this appeal be
entertained.
4. On the other hand, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior
Advocate for the contesting eighth respondent has submitted that,
learned Single Judge, in the facts of this case has refused to
exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
the said refusal in no way can be said to be an error, much less any
error apparent on the face of record which may be corrected under
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It is submitted that this appeal be
dismissed.
5. Without prejudice to the above, it is further submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
that, this litigation is not bonafide and it needs to be seen as chain
of various litigations. Reference is made to W.P(MD) No.19764 of
2021 and W.P(MD) No.6862 of 2022. It is submitted that the relief
sought in those petitions be weighed vis-a-vis this petition, further
keeping in view the prima facie observations made by learned
Single Judge more particularly in para:33 and 34 of the order under
challenge. It is noted that, learned Senior Advocate for the
respondent has also taken this Court through various provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994, more particularly Sections
143A, 202, 205 and 220 thereof, which are relied by learned
advocate for the petitioner as well. It is further submitted that, if
these provisions are reconciled with what is sought to be contended
on behalf of the petitioner, it would only further fortify the case of
the respondents that the proceedings are instituted by the petitioner
in her official capacity for the considerations less known to law. It is
submitted that, it is under these circumstances this appeal be
dismissed.
6. Learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted
that, the orders under challenge in the writ petition were issued by
the competent authority in due consultation with and under the
authorization of the District Collector and therefore this appeal be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
dismissed.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record this Court
finds as under:-
7.1 The appeal is by the President of the Village
Panchayat. Before the merits of the appeal are examined, at
the outset, it needs to be noted that, not only it is the case of
the contesting respondent but there is prima facie finding by
learned Single Judge about the lack of bonafide on the part of
the writ petitioner / appellant. Para : 33 and 34 of the order
under challenge reads as under:-
“33.The eighth respondent has
also raised a contention that the
petitioner is known for demanding
illegal gratification from various
entities to unjustly enrich herself.
Though the said contention has been
raised without any documentary
evidence, this Court cannot totally
ignore the said contention to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
false, as the conduct of the
petitioner raises some suspicion on
the minds of the Court. However, the
present issue is not one concerning
the integrity of the petitioner and
therefore, there is no necessity for
this Court to make a roving enquiry
against those allegations levelled by
the eighth respondent in their
counter affidavit.
34.The petitioner is a
Panchayat President and is a
responsible person in the Society,
who has been vested with certain
statutory powers. She must act
responsibly, while discharging her
function and should not have any
personal interest. The petitioner has
now challenged the impugned
communication sent by the third
respondent/Block Development Officer,
which is not an adverse order passed
against the petitioner, but is only a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
communication intimating the
petitioner that the attachment notice
issued by her against the eighth
respondent is not in accordance with
law, as it has been issued without
the approval of the District
Collector and other revenue
officials.”
7.2 Having found as above, this Court is called upon
to examine the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant
against the order / advisory by the State Authorities to her
keeping in view the provisions of the Act. In this regard,
reference needs to be made to para : 29 and 30 of the order
under challenge:-
“29.The attachment notice has
been issued by the petitioner, as a
Panchayat President on 30.01.2022
without the approval of the District
Collector. The third respondent/Block
Development Officer has also issued the
impugned communication to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner has issued the attachment
notice without getting approval of the
District Collector and other revenue
officials. It is also the contention of
the official respondents that only with
the concurrence of the District
Collector, the impugned communication
has been issued to the petitioner, who
is the Panchayat President. Section 202
of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994,
reads as follows:
“202. (1) The Inspector may, by
order in writing,-
(i) suspend or cancel any
resolution passed, order issued, or
licence or permission granted, or
(ii) prohibit the doing of any act
which is about to be done or is
being done, in pursuance or under
colour of this Act, if in his
opinion,
(a) such resolution, order,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
licence, permission or act has not
been legally passed, issued,
granted or authorised, or
(b) such resolution, order,
licence, permission or act is in
excess of the powers conferred by
this Act or any other law or an
abuse of such powers or is
considered by the Inspector to be
otherwise undesirable, or
(c) the execution of such
resolution or order, or the
continuance in force of such
licence or permission or the doing
of such act is likely to cause
danger to human life, health or
safety, or is likely to lead to a
riot or an affray: Provided that
nothing in this sub-section shall
enable the Inspector to set aside
any election which has been held.
(2) The Inspector shall, before
taking action on any of the grounds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
referred to in clauses (a) and (b)
of sub-section (1), give the
authority or person concerned an
opportunity for explanation.
(3) The power conferred on the
Inspector under clause (c) of
subsection (I) may be exercised by
the Collector in accordance with
the provisions of that clause.”
30.As seen from the
aforementioned section, the District
Collector is having the power to
prohibit the doing of any act, which is
about to be done or is being done in
pursuance or under colour of the Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Act, if in his opinion,
such a resolution, order, licence,
permission or act has not been legally
passed, issued, granted or authorised.
The Inspector referred to the above
Section is the District Collector.
Hence, it is clear that the District
Collector is having the power to issue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
communication, as in the nature of one,
which is impugned in this Writ
Petition. Though the same has been
issued by the Block Development
Officer, a categorical stand has been
taken that the said communication has
been issued only with the approval of
the District Collector. None of the
respondents have also not denied the
same. The petitioner has also not
contended that the impugned
communication has been issued without
the approval of the District Collector.
Therefore, it is to be presumed that
prior approval was obtained by the
third respondent/Block Development
Officer from the District Collector
before issuing the impugned
communication to the petitioner. The
act of the third respondent under the
impugned communication would not
tantamount to helping a wrong doer, as
alleged by the petitioner. There are no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
materials/evidence placed before this
Court to show that the eighth
respondent is a wrong doer. When there
are no materials/evidence against the
eighth respondent, the aforesaid
contention of the petitioner has to be
necessarily rejected.”
7.3 If Section 202 of the Act is kept in view coupled
with the satisfaction and finding recorded by learned Single
Judge, we find that not only this was the case where discretion
was not required to be exercised, had learned Single Judge
thought it proper to exercise his discretion, legally it was not
permissible to grant relief to the petitioner which was prayed
by her. We find that, dismissal of writ petition, going by any
standard can not be said to be erroneous and therefore no
interference is required. This appeal therefore needs to be
dismissed.
8. Having held that this appeal needs to be dismissed,
we have restrained ourselves from examining the appeal from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
the view point of lack of bonafide on the part of writ
petitioner / appellant. If at all it was to be explored, not only
the finding of learned Single Judge, may be prima facie, the
said aspect might have further aggravated in this appeal. It is
for the following reason. In the copy of the writ petition which
is placed on record of this appeal (at page 66 to 72), the
prayer clause reads as under:-
“(i) to direct the 4th
respondent to remove all the
encroachment made by the 8th
respondent in Nadakottai Village.
(ii) to direct the 1st
respondent to attach the building
materials unloaded by the 8th
respondent without getting proper
approval from the Panchayat.
(iii) to pass any order,
direction or relief which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit in favour of
this petitioner and thus render
justice.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
8.1 If this is reconciled with what is noted by learned
Single Judge, as the prayer clause, it reads as under:-
“Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to call for the records from
the third respondent and quash his
orders / advice Na.Ka.No.138/2022/2Thi,
dated 03.02.2022 and Na.Ka.No.
138/2022/2Thi, dated 07.02.2022 and
order valuation of the materials by the
engineer Panchayat Union then permit the
petitioner office or any competent
office this Court deems fit and to call
for auctionor this materials attached.”
8.2 This would show, what is placed before this Bench
as the copy of the writ petition is something different than
what was placed on record before learned Single Judge.
9. As noted above, since we have restrained ourselves
from further examining the matter from the view point of lack
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
of bonafide on the part of the appellant, this point is left here.
In totality, we hold that, no relief can be granted to the
appellant. No interference is required in the order of learned
Single Judge.
10. For the above reasons, this writ appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions would not survive.
(P.U., J) (R.V., J)
20.04.2022
Index : No
pkn/3
To:-
1.The Additional Collector (Development),
District Rural Development Agency,
Dindigul.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayat),
Dindigul.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Batlagundu Panchayat Union,
Batlagundu, Dindigul District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dindigul District.
5.Tahsildar,
Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
6.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District.
7.The Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Commissionerate of Land Reforms,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
pkn
W.A(MD)No.359 of 2022
20.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
