Madras High Court
Sankiliammal vs The District Collector on 4 January, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7979 and 171764 of 2021
Sankiliammal ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Theni District.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayats),
Office of the Assistant Director,
Theni.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Kadamalaikundu Myladumparai Union Office,
Myladumparai,
Theni District.
4.Gowri ... 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 impugned orders issued passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.9865/2021/Q-2, dated 12.05.2021 and quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to sign
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
as a second signatory in the Kandamanoor Panchayat cheques along with the
fourth respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.K.Appadurai
ORDER
Heard Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first to third
respondents and Mr.K.Appadurai, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
2.The writ petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, seeking interference with an order passed by the first
respondent/District Collector, Theni Distrtict, dated 12.05.2021, by which order,
the said first respondent had frustrated the right of the petitioner to sign cheques,
which right, the petitioner claims in view of the position which she holds as Vice
President of Kandamanoor Village Panchayat in Andipatti Taluk at Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
3.Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the
impugned order on the ground that notice had not been issued to the petitioner
prior to such drastic step being taken by the first respondent/District Collector
and in this connection, learned counsel placed strong reliance on a Division
Bench Judgment of this Court reported in (2005) 1 CTC 545: (2005) 1 Law
Weekly 506 : (2005) 1 MLJ 549 [Pugazhendran Vs. B.G.Balu and Others]. The
learned Division Bench, in that particular case, which was headed by the then
Hon'ble Chief Justice was concerned with withdrawal of cheque signing powers
under Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and had given a
very categorical statement/observation that such withdrawal of powers, though
within the powers of the District Collector should be resorted to only after
following the principles of natural justice, which includes issuing notice and
getting an explanation and coming to a subjective satisfaction on the issues
raised. In that particular case, fault was found on the said order of the District
Collector by stating that the District Collector had only followed the
recommendation of the Block Development Officer and on examining the
resolution passed by the Village Panchayat. But, there was no indication in the
order that the District Collector had actually applied his mind with respect to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
necessity to withdraw the cheque signing power of the Vice President, in that
particular case.
4.Specific reliance had been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner
on paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, which are extracted below:-
“..27.We would however point out that before granting prior
approval it would be the duty of the Inspector of Panchayats (District
Collector) to give a hearing to the Vice President or (President, as the
case may be) (which need not be a personal hearing as already mentioned
above), and apply his mind and decide by a written order giving reasons
as to whether in his opinion, the Vice President (or President, as the case
may be) is refusing to sign the cheque for ulterior motive, or for genuine
reasons in the interest of the Village Panchayat. It will be the duty of the
Inspector of Panchayats, to decide this matter objectively and impartially
without being influenced by any extraneous pressures or considerations. If
the refusal to sign the cheque is for good and genuine reasons in the
interest of the Village Panchayat, the Inspector should refuse approval, but
if it is for extraneous considerations or is mala fide he should grant it.
28. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that
G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 26.03.1997 is not violative of Section 188(3) of the
Act and the two can be read harmoniously as stated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
29. In the present case a perusal of the order of the District
Collector, Vellore (Inspector of Panchayats, Vellore) dated 07.11.2002
cancelling the power of the Vice President to sign the panchayat's cheques
as joint signatory, shows that the District Collector has merely acted on
the recommendation of the Block Development Officer, Katpadi Panchayat
Union, and he has not applied his mind independently to the facts of the
case, and he has not come to any independent conclusion that the refusal
to sign cheques by the Vice President was mala fide or for ulterior
motives. The District Collector, Vellore without issuing notice to the
petitioner appears to have mechanically accepted the report of the Block
Development Officer, Katpadi Panchayat Union, which in our opinion was
not proper.
30. In paragraph-4 of the petitioner's affidavit it has been
specifically alleged that no notice was given by the District Collector
before passing the impugned order, and this allegation has not been
denied by the Collector in his counter affidavit. In our opinion, the
District Collector's order dated 7.11.2002 has civil consequences, and
hence it was incumbent on him to give a show cause notice to the
petitioner before passing it, which was not done. Hence, in our opinion,
there was violation of the principles of natural justice, and the impugned
order becomes illegal.
31. The District Collector, Vellore should have given a show cause
notice and an opportunity of hearing to the Vice President (which need not
have been a personal hearing as already stated above), and after
considering the explanation and other materials submitted by the Vice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
President, he should have applied his mind independently and in a fair and
impartial manner, and should have recorded his own reasons in the order
he passed. Since that does not appear to have been done in the order of the
District Collector, Vellore dated 07.11.2002, in our opinion, the said order
was rightly quashed. The matter is remanded to the District Collector,
Vellore to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
Vice President and President of the Panchayat, and others concerned, and
after recording his reasons. This should be done very expeditiously by the
District collector, Vellore.”
5.Finally, after giving the aforesaid findings, the Division Bench had also
given necessary power to the District Collector to re-examine the entire issue.
They had interfered with the impugned order, but had retained the power of the
District Collector to pass such an order withdrawing the cheque signing authority
to the Vice President.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, pointed out that the
petitioner herein as Vice President, had given a complaint against the fourth
respondent, who was the President of the same Kandamanoor Village Panchayat
and various allegations have been raised. It is claimed therefore, that the order
had been passed out of malafide intentions, merely to wreck vengeance on the
petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
7.Quite apart from levelling allegations against the fourth respondent, the
petitioner appears to have filed W.P.(MD)No.14946 of 2021 (Criminal), seeking
investigation by a competent investigating agency with respect to the allegations
which she had raised against the fourth respondent. The learned counsel stated
that it was only under those circumstances, certain cheques that were presented
for signature, were not signed by the petitioner herein, as the petitioner felt that
signing of those cheques would be a serious encroachment to her principles. It
was finally stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner is always ready and
willing to sign the cheques and had also expressed such desire to sign the
cheques, particularly, relating to the salary and other essential expenditures to be
incurred on behalf of the Panchayat. Pointing out all the above factors, the
learned counsel insisted that the impugned order should be interfered with,
primarily on the ground of not following the procedure established by law.
8.Mr.N.Satheeshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, pointed
out the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, wherein, the circumstances
leading to the passing of the impugned order were explained and the learned
Additional Government Pleader pointed out that had been stated that during May
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
2021/the lock down period owing to Covid-19, emergent situation had arisen and
the petitioner herein was called upon to sign certain cheques and in view of the
fact that she did not oblige, the authority under Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu
Village Panchayat Act, 1994 was invoked by the first respondent withdrawing the
powers and assigning such power to another named official in the impugned
order. It had also been stated that further, the Panchayat Members themselves
have passed the resolution and had taken a decision to remove the cheque signing
power from the petitioner herein. It was also stated that an enquiry had also been
conducted and in view of the resolution of the majority members of the Village
Panchayat, which resolution was also approved by the first respondent, after
following due procedures, the impugned order had been passed.
9.Mr.K.Appadurai, learned counsel for the fourth respondent pointed out
that there was no co-operation extended by the petitioner herein and the learned
counsel also pointed out the impugned order, more particularly to the references
in the impugned order which indicated that all the necessary materials and records
have been perused by the first respondent prior to the passing of the impugned
order. The learned counsel stated that necessary enquiry was conducted and only
thereafter, the impugned order was passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
10.I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced and
had perused the materials available on records.
11.Section 188 relates to Village Panchayat Funds. Naturally, while dealing
with those funds, much care should be taken by the cheque signing authorities,
namely, the President and the Vice President of the Village Panchayat. There is
an obligation placed on them, that they would present themselves and pass certain
expenditures to be incurred, particularly, in emergent situations. In May, 2021 as
a fact, there was a pandemic wave across the country and also in Theni District
and more particularly, in Kandamanoor Village Panchayat. The statement of the
first respondent that in May, 2021, there was a necessity for emergent
expenditures to be incurred owing to the pandemic Covid-19, cannot be
overlooked by this Court or brushed under the carpet by this Court.
12.That situation, as a fact was a reality which every individual across the
country faced. It was at that time, that the President and the Vice President
should have arisen and should have acted together with due sense of
responsibility thrust upon them. Among other responsibilities thrust on them was
to act jointly for the welfare of the people. That was not an occasion to pick up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
issues with respect to each other. They may have differences. If they have
differences, they cannot work as a team. Then they cannot resolve the
requirements of the Panchayat and would be letting the general public to suffer
owing to their differences.
13.The petitioner has a bundle of grievances against the fourth respondent.
I have no comment to make on the same. The petitioner can proceed with in
manner known to law to ensure that those grievances are addressed by the
necessary authorities. The petitioner had also filed W.P.(MD)No.14946 of 2021
and the matter is pending before this Court. Naturally orders will be passed, at
some point or the other. But the petitioner should realize that a larger duty and
the first duty as an elected Vice President is towards the people and not towards
anybody else.
14.During Covid-19, when sufferance was visible and evident across the
State, anybody, who has, who was in authority should have burried their
differences and acted in unison for the benefit of the people. This is what was
expected and this is what the electoral people expected, when they elect a
particular person either as a President or the Ward Members joints together and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
elect a Vice President. Failure to discharge duty at that particular crucial time,
will only invoke drastic orders being passed in the nature which is now impugned
by the petitioner herein.
15.The claim of the petitioner is that notice was not given prior to
withdrawal of the cheque signing power. But, it has to be examined whether such
notice would have been a empty formality in the circumstances, which prevailed
during the lock down of the second wave of Covid-19. At that particular time, it
was a fact that the petitioner's signatures in the cheques were definitely required
to be affixed. If the petitioner had not voluntarily come forward to affix the
signatures then if the expenditures are immediate in nature, naturally, as Inspector
of Panchayats, the first respondent/District Collector had to invoke the provisions
under the Village Panchayat Act to ensure that the Panchayat makes necessary
expenditures towards the needs of the people. The team will have to work with
the leaders in unison. Even if the President/Vice President have personal
grievances, official work should proceed and personal grievances should not be
allowed to enter to encroach official duty and put a spoke on discharge of official
duties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
16.Eventhough failure of issuing notice will be violative of the principles
of natural justice, each case will have to be examined on the basis of the peculiar
situation which prevailed at that particular point of time. Covid-19 was a
situation, which was an emergency and Courts have to uphold a different set of
procedures to be followed to handle such a situation. In May 2021, when as a
matter of fact, there was a second lock down owing to Covid-19, it was expected
that the petitioner would affix signatures for the necessary expenses which are
meant for the welfare of the general public. The petitioner claims that the
cheques which alone related to expenditures which were controversial in nature
or to which contracts had been unilaterally awarded by the fourth respondent
alone had been refused to be signed by the petitioner herein. That is an issue,
which the petitioner can always agitate before the first respondent. But the
petitioner should also realize that duty to the people is paramount and not to the
post to which, she had been elected.
17.I would however give liberty to the first respondent to re-examine the
entire issue, in view of the fact that the petitioner claims that she had not been put
on notice. She may forward a representation to the first respondent. But till such
time, let the named individual in the impugned order continue to be the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
signing authority and let the first respondent conduct an independent examination
of all the facts, which prevented the petitioner from signing the cheques and pass
necessary orders.
18.I am only giving a further opportunity to the petitioner herein to realize
that she had been elected as a Vice President and that duty is thrust and placed on
her by the people and she has to discharge that particular trust and there could not
be any room to breach that particular trust. Therefore, the order impugned order
is upheld.
19.A direction is however given to the first respondent, if at all the
petitioner gives a further representation for reconsideration, to re-examine and
revisit the impugned order. Till such an exercise is completed, let the impugned
order continue. If on revisiting the order and on considering the representation of
the petitioner herein, the first respondent is of the opinion that the impugned
order can be withdrawn and the petitioner's right to sign the cheques can be again
given back to the petitioner, the first respondent is at liberty to pass such an order.
The petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation giving the reasons why the
cheques signing withdrawing power, should be interfered with and revisited by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
the first respondent and such representation should be given, on or before
31.01.2022 and on receipt of such representation, the first respondent may
conduct an enquiry in manner known to law and at any rate, pass necessary orders
on or before 28.02.2022 and depending on that particular order, let the
functioning of the Kandamur Village Panchayat be decided. Till the first
respondent passes an order, the impugned order will stand and is not interfered
with me.
20.Giving that particular liberty to the petitioner, the writ petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sji
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
To
1.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Theni District.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayats),
Office of the Assistant Director,
Theni.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Kadamalaikundu Myladumparai Union Office,
Myladumparai,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
sji
W.P.(MD) No.10295 of 2021
04.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
