Madras High Court
A.Lakshmi Azhkapuriyan vs The District Collector on 28 February, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.3188 and 3190 of 2022
A.Lakshmi Azhkapuriyan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District-626 002.
2.The Tahsildar,
Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Rajapalayam Panchayat Union,
Virudhunagar 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 relating to
the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent in his
proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/1271/2022, dated 21.02.2022 and quash the
same as illegal.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R1 and R2 :Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
For R3 :Mr.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned
proceedings of the second respondent dated 21.02.2022, issued under
Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred
to as “the Act”), calling upon her to appear before the second respondent
for the meeting with regard to the proceedings initiated against her for
her removal as Panchayat President on 01.03.2022.
2.The impugned proceedings, dated 21.02.2022 has been
challenged by the petitioner, who is the Panchayat President of
Melapattam Karisalkulam Village, on the following grounds:
(a)The second respondent has disobeyed the order of this Court,
dated 08.02.2022, passed in W.P.(MD)No.2545 of 2022. According to
the petitioner, despite directing the District Collector, Virudhunagar, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
that Writ Petition to pass final orders after giving due consideration to the
explanations, dated 13.11.2021 and 12.01.2022 given by the petitioner to
the show cause notices, dated 26.10.2021 and 12.01.2022 and after
affording a personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, under the
impugned proceedings, the said direction issued by this Court on
08.02.2022 in W.P(MD)No.2545 of 2022 has not been followed.
According to the petitioner, even without referring to the aforesaid
order, dated 08.02.2022, the second respondent has passed the impugned
proceedings calling upon the petitioner for a meeting on 01.03.2022 with
regard to the proceedings initiated against her for her removal as
Panchayat President.
(b)The procedure contemplated under Section 205 of the Act, has
not been followed in letter and spirit. According to the petitioner, though
it is alleged by the second respondent that only based on the direction
given by the first respondent on 24.01.2022, the impugned proceedings
have been initiated, neither the copy of the proceedings of the first
respondent dated 24.01.2022 was furnished to the petitioner nor it was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
issued after the first respondent being objectively satisfied for initiating
action for the removal of the petitioner as Panchayat President, which
according to the petitioner is mandatory as per the provisions of Section
205 of the Act.
3.A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the
allegations of the petitioner. It is their case that even on 08.02.2022,
when the order in W.P.(MD)No.2545 of 2022 came to be passed by this
Court, the first respondent had already issued recommendations to the
second respondent for taking action against the petitioner for her removal
as Panchayat President after giving due consideration to the explanations
submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notices issued by the first
respondent. According to the respondents, only after the objective
satisfaction of the first respondent, the impugned proceedings have been
initiated by the second respondent, under which the petitioner has been
called for a meeting as per the provisions of Section 205 of the Act.
Therefore, according to them, since the order was passed by the first
respondent on 24.01.2022 itself, the direction issued by this Court on
08.02.2022 in W.P(MD)No.2545 of 2022 is not reflected in the impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
proceedings of the second respondent, dated 21.02.2022. The
explanations referred to by the petitioner in this Writ Petition were duly
considered by the first respondent in his order, dated 24.01.2022 and
therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged
by the petitioner.
4.Heard Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.M.Linga Durai, learned Special Government Pleader
for the first and second respondents and Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned
Additional Government Pleader for the third respondent.
5.Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
drew the attention of this Court to the order, dated 08.02.2022 passed by
this Court, in W.P.(MD)No.2545 of 2022 and would submit that in the
impugned notice dated 21.02.2022, there is no finding as to whether the
petitioner was afforded a fair hearing by the first respondent and whether
a personal hearing was afforded to her before the first respondent passed
the order dated 24.01.2022, recommending action against the petitioner
to the second respondent in accordance with the provisions of Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
6.He would submit that without affording a personal hearing, as
directed by this Court, the first respondent has passed the order dated
24.01.2022, recommending the second respondent to take legal action
against the petitioner for her removal as Panchayat President. He would
also submit that the petitioner was not served with the copy of the
proceedings, dated 24.01.2022 passed by the first respondent. Therefore,
according to him, the second respondent has disobeyed the order of this
Court, dated 08.02.2022 passed in W.P.(MD)No.2545 of 2022.
7.He also drew the attention of this Court to Section 205(2) of the
Act and would submit that the first respondent has not objectively
considered the detailed explanation given by the petitioner to the show
cause notices issued by him for her removal as Panchayat President, in
his order, dated 24.01.2022.
8.In support of the aforesaid submissions, Mr.A.Ajmal Khan,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of
Manoharlal (Dead) by Lrs vs Ugrasen (Dead) By Lrs and others,
reported in (2010) 11 SCC 557. In the said decision, which according to
the petitioner, it has been categorically held that the fact of action taken
subsequent to passing of an interim order in its disobedience and held
that any action taken in disobedience of the order passed by the Court
would be illegal and the subsequent action would be a nullity.
9.Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also
drew the attention of this Court to a judgment of a learned Single Judge
of this Court in the case of P.Packiam vs the Inspector of Panchayat
and others reported in 2013 (1) CWC 797, and would submit that
Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, which deals with
removal of a Panchayat President is a drastic power having far reaching
consequence and therefore, the first respondent/District Collector, even if
he is going to overrule the explanations offered by the petitioner, he has
to pass a detailed order by applying his mind objectively.
10.According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
said exercise has not been done in the case on hand and in a mechanical
fashion, the first respondent has passed the order, dated 24.01.2022
recommending the second respondent to take action against the petitioner
for her removal as per the provisions of Section 205 of the Act.
Discussion:
11.Admittedly, this Court by its order, dated 08.02.2022, in a Writ
Petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2545 of 2022, passed a
final order in the said Writ Petition calling upon the respondents in that
Writ Petition to pass final orders with respect to the show cause notices,
dated 26.10.2021 and 12.01.2022 issued by the first respondent after
considering the explanations, dated 13.11.2021 and 12.01.2022 and after
affording a personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
12.In W.P.(MD)No.2545 of 2022, the respondent was the District
Collector (Panchayat Division), Kumarasamy Raja Nagar, Virudhunagar
626 002. The impugned proceedings has been issued by the second
respondent under Section 205(3) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
appear for a meeting with regard to her removal as Panchayat President
on 01.03.2022. In the impugned proceedings, there is a reference to an
order, dated 24.01.2022 said to have been passed by the first respondent
recommending action against the petitioner for her removal as Panchayat
President after giving due consideration to the explanations submitted by
the petitioner to the show cause notices issued by the first respondent for
her removal as Panchayat President. However, the said order, dated
24.01.2022, though being an internal communication, the copy of the
same was not furnished to the petitioner. In the impugned proceedings,
there is also no reference as to whether a copy of the order, dated
24.01.2022 passed by the first respondent was given to the petitioner or
not.
13.There was a clear direction by this Court in its order, dated
08.02.2022 in W.P(MD)No.2545 of 2022 that the petitioner must be
afforded personal hearing. The contention of the respondents as seen
from the counter filed before this Court is that even when the order, dated
08.02.2022, came to be passed in W.P(MD)No.2545 of 2022, the order,
dated 24.01.2022 was already passed by the first respondent in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
accordance with the provisions of Section 205 of the Act, recommending
action against the petitioner for her removal as Panchayat President. In
fact, the order, dated 08.02.2022 was passed by this Court in W.P.
(MD)No.2545 of 2021 only after the respondents were represented
through their Counsels . On that date, this Court was not informed about
the passing of the order, dated 24.01.2022 by the District Collector
recommending action against the petitioner for her removal under
Section 205 of the Act.
14.When the first respondent, who was the respondent in
W.P(MD)No.2545 of 2022 was aware of the passing of the order, dated
08.02.2022, he should have informed the second respondent, who has
passed the impugned proceedings about the passing of the order and the
second respondent should have sought for clarification from this Court
before passing the impugned proceedings, dated 21.02.2022 calling upon
the petitioner to appear for the meeting on 01.03.2022 with regard to the
petitioner's removal as Panchayat President. There is also no reference to
the order, dated 08.02.2022 passed by this Court, in W.P.(MD)No.2545 of
2022 in the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
21.02.2021.
15.As rightly held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the
decision referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in
P.Packiam vs the Inspector of Panchayat and others reported in 2013
(1) CWC 797, the removal of a Panchayat President, is a drastic order
and therefore, having far reaching the consequence and therefore, the
power under Section 205 of the Act, has to be exercised by strict
compliance of the statutory requirements. This Court is in agreement
with the said view.
16.As seen from the order, dated 24.01.2022, which the first
respondent is said to have passed under Section 205 of the Act,
recommending legal action against the petitioner for her removal as
Panchayat President, excepting for referring to the explanations
submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notices issued by the first
respondent, no detailed reasoning has been given.
17.Being a drastic action, that is removing a Panchayat President,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
only after the objective satisfaction of the first respondent that the
evidence placed before him over the allegations levelled against the
petitioner, is found to be satisfactory and the explanations submitted by
the petitioner to the show cause notices is found to be unsatisfactory, the
first respondent is empowered to recommend legal action against the
petitioner for her removal as Panchayat President and recommend the
same to the second respondent accordingly.
18.Further, this Court had made it clear in its order, dated
08.02.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.2545 of 2022, that the petitioner must be
afforded a fair hearing and must also be granted personal hearing. But in
the order, dated 24.01.2021 passed by first respondent, no personal
hearing was granted to the petitioner. Though the order, dated
24.01.2022 was passed even before the order, dated 08.02.2022 passed
by this Court in W.P(MD)No.2545 of 2022, being a drastic action ie.,
seeking removal of the petitioner as Panchayat President, the first
respondent ought to have granted the petitioner a right of personal
hearing, which he has failed to do so in his order, dated 24.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
19.The decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner in the case of Manoharlal (Dead) by Lrs vs Ugrasen (Dead)
By Lrs and others, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 557 also supports the case
of the petitioner. In that decision also, the Honourable Supreme Court
considered the effect of action taken subsequent to passing of an interim
order in its disobedience and held that any action taken in disobedience
of the order passed by the Court would be illegal and the subsequent
action would be a nullity.
20.The Honourable Supreme Court has referred to various
decisions with regard to the very same proposition in the said judgment.
The case on hand also falls under the very same category, wherein, a
direction was issued by this Court on 08.02.2022 to the first respondent
calling upon him to provide a fair hearing to the petitioner and also
calling upon him to grant personal hearing to the petitioner, but, whereas,
though the order, dated 24.01.2022 came to be passed by the first
respondent even prior to the order, dated 08.02.2022 passed by this
Court, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner and a detailed
reasoning has also not been given by the first respondent for rejecting the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
petitioner's explanation to the show cause notices issued by the first
respondent with regard to the petitioner's removal as Panchayat
President.
21.The first respondent has also not informed the second
respondent about the passing of the order, dated 08.02.2022 by this Court
in W.P.(MD)No.2545 of 2022. Being a superior authority, the first
respondent ought to have informed the order dated 08.02.2022 to the
second respondent. But, without considering the same, the impugned
proceedings has been issued by the second respondent calling upon the
petitioner to appear in person on 01.03.2022 with regard to her removal
as Panchayat President, which in the considered view of this Court is per
se illegal and has to be set aside.
22.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view
that the first respondent has violated the principles of natural justice and
has also not complied with the direction given by this Court on
08.02.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.2545 of 2022 in letter and spirit by affording
a fair hearing to the petitioner and by granting the right of personal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
hearing. Therefore, the impugned proceedings, dated 21.02.2022 issued
by the second respondent is hereby quashed and the Writ Petition is
allowed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to take fresh
action against the petitioner, if so advised, under Section 205 of the
Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 or under any other statutory provisions
in the manner known to them under law. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index :Yes / No 28.02.2022
Internet :Yes
cmr
To
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District-626 002.
2.The Tahsildar,
Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Rajapalayam Panchayat Union,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
cmr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.3652 of 2022
28.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
