Madras High Court
N.Pachaiyammal vs The District ... on 14 July, 2023
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
and
W.M.P.Nos.19394 and 19395 of 2023
N.Pachaiyammal ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat
The District Collectorate Office,
Villupuram.
2.The Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayats
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Commissioner,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayats
Panagal Maligai, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
4.The Assistant Director (Panchayats)
District Collectorate Office,
Villupuram.
5.The Block Development Officer,
Olakkur Union,
Tindivanam Taluk,
Villupuram District. ... Respondents
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of
Impugned Order dated 17.05.2023 issued by the 1st respondent through his
proceedings Na.Ka.No.AA3/271/2023 and quash the same as illegal,
arbitrary and non-est in laws and further direct the 1st respondent to appoint
the petitioner and any other member of Sethamangalam Panchayat Union to
sign cheques and operate bank Panchayat accounts.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef
For R1 to R4 : Mr.N.Naveenkumar
Government Advocate
For R5 : Mr.M.Rajendran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The writ petition is filed by the President of Panchayat challenging
the order passed by the 1st respondent withdrawing the cheques signing
power available to the President and authorising the 5th respondent to
exercise the said cheques signing power.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
2. Heard the arguments of Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr.N.Naveenkumar, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.M.Rajendran, learned Additional Government
Pleader for the 5th respondent.
3. The petitioner was elected as President of Sethamangalam
Panchayat, Olakkur Taluk, Tindivanam District. It is stated by the petitioner
that from the date of her appointment, the Vice President of the said
Panchayat refused to cooperate with her. The petitioner made a
representation to the respondents complaining about the non-cooperation by
the Vice President. The Panchayat also passed a resolution on 02.12.2022
unanimously requesting the 1st respondent to appoint 3rd Ward Member as
an authority to co-sign the cheque instead of Vice President. Though the
resolution was passed by the Panchayat was sent to the 1st respondent, the 1st
respondent has not taken any further action in pursuance of the same. In
these circumstances, the petitioner made a representation dated 30.01.2023
to the 1st respondent requesting to take action against the Vice President.
The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 14.03.2023 to the 2nd
respondent for removal of the Vice President and the same has not been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
considered.
4. Lateron, the 1st respondent by his proceedings dated 06.05.2023
appointed the 4th respondent herein as an authority to sign the cheques along
with the President. In these circumstances, the impugned order has been
passed by the 1st respondent dated 17.05.2023 appointing the 4th respondent
as an authority to sign cheques by withdrawing the power available to the
President.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the
Scheme of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, there is no power available to
the 1st respondent to withdraw the cheques signing power of the President,
which has been conferred on the President and Vice President under Section
188 of the Act. It is also submitted by the petitioner that in case of non-
cooperation by the Vice President and others Members, under Section 204
of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the 1st respondent is empowered to
authorise the President of the Panchayat to exercise the cheques signing
power.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
6. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order has been passed without considering the representations
submitted by the petitioner and hence, the same is violative of principles of
natural justice.
7. Mr.M.Rajendran, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the 5th respondent submits that under Section 203 of the Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the 1st respondent has got emergency power
and by invoking emergency power, the impugned order has been passed.
The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 also
tried to sustain the impugned order by relying on Section 203 of the Tamil
Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994.
8. This Court had an occasion to consider the cheques signing power
available to the President of Panchayat under Section 188 of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Act, 1994 and the power available to the Inspector of Panchayat
to withdraw the funds in Logeshwari vs. The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli reported in 2013 (2) CTC 846. The relevant observation of
this Court in the above said judgment reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
“20. The District Collector cannot act as an extra-
constitutional authority over democratically elected President
and Vice-President of the Panchayat. In case the elected
President or Vice-President indulges in acts of misuse of
authority and the cheque signing power should be taken away,
it is for the legislature to incorporate appropriate provisions
to confer such express powers of suspension on the District
Collector.
21. The Collectors are very often exercising this power
to take away the cheque signing powers of the President and
Vice-President. The power to sign cheque is a statutory power
conferred on the President and Vice-President under sub-
section (3) of Section 188 of the Act. The President and the
Vice-President are under the general control of the Village
Panchayat. The statutory power given to the President of the
Panchayat or Vice-President cannot be taken away by the
Inspector of Panchayat, by exercising the emergency powers.
Since the cheque signing facility is given by the statute, there
should be a specific power conferred upon the Inspector of
Panchayats to take away such power. So long as there are no
specific provisions to take away the cheque signing power of
the President or Vice-President, the Collector cannot invoke
incidental or emergent powers to divest the elected
representatives of their statutory right.
22. The Inspector of Panchayats is given power under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
Section 205 of the Act to remove the President from office.
Similar powers are given under Section 206 of the Act for the
purpose of removal of Vice-President. Sub-Section (b) of
Section 205(1) of the Act gives authority to the Inspector of
Panchayats to take action against the President of Panchayat,
in case it is made out that the President abused the power
vested in him. In case it is made out that the President abused
the cheque signing power, and misappropriated the public
funds, the same can be a valid reason to initiate action for
removal under Section 205 of the Act.
23. The President is an elected representative of the
people of the village. The Constitution and the Panchayat Act
wanted to give financial powers to the local body and it was
only for the said purpose, the legislature has vested the
Executive Authority on the Panchayat. The Legislature has
given the cheque signing power to the President and Vice-
President. The cheques have to 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 another
member authorized by the Village Panchayat. Such a power
cannot be taken away by the District Collector lightly by
invoking the emergency powers.
The Legal Principles:
24. The importance of Panchayat Raj Institutions in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
light of Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992 was
indicated by the Supreme Court in Village Panchayat,
Calangute v. The Addional Director of Panchayat, 2012 (3)
MWN (Civil) 319 (SC) : 2012 (7) SCC 550. The Supreme Court
observed:
"22. An analysis of Article 40 and Articles 243 to
243-O shows that the Framers of the Constitution had
envisaged the Village Panchayat to be the foundation of the
country's political democracy - a decentralised form of
Government where each village was to be responsible for its
own affairs. By enacting the Constitution (Seventy-third
Amendment) Act, Parliament has attempted to remedy the
defects and remove the deficiencies of the Panchayat Raj
system evolved after Independence, which failed to live up to
the expectation of the people in rural India. The provisions
contained in Part IX provide firm basis for self-governance by
the people at the grass root through the institution of
panchayats at different levels.
23. For achieving the objectives enshrined in Part
IX of the Constitution, the State Legislatures have enacted laws
and made provision for devolution of powers upon and
assigned various functions listed in the Eleventh Schedule to
the panchayats. The primary focus of the subjects enumerated
in the Eleventh Schedule is on social and economic
development of the rural parts of the country by conferring
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
upon the panchayat the status of a Constitutional body.
Parliament has ensured that the panchayats would no longer
perform the role of simply executing the programs and policies
evolved by the political executive of the State. By virtue of the
provisions contained in Part IX, the panchayats have been
empowered to formulate and implement their own programs of
economic development and social justice in tune with their
status as the third tier of the Government which is mandated to
represent the interests of the people living within its
jurisdiction. The system of panchayats envisaged in this part
aims at establishing strong and accountable systems of
governance that will in turn ensure more equitable distribution
of resources in a manner beneficial to all."
Declaration of Law:
25. The law is, therefore, clear that the District
Collector has no power under Section 203 of the Panchayat
Act to take away the cheque signing power of the President
and the Vice-President.”
9. A perusal of the above judgment would suggest that the power to
sign the cheques has been conferred on the President and Vice President
specifically under Section 188 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
Therefore, the cheques signing power is a Statutory Power available to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
President and Vice President of Panchayat. There is no provision under the
Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, enabling the 1st respondent to withdraw
the Statutory Power which is expressly conferred on the President of
Panchayat.
10. The submission made by the learned Additional Government
Pleader for the 5th respondent and learned Government Advocate for
respondents 1 to 4 that the impugned order has been passed by the 1st
respondent by exercising the power under Section 203 of Panchayat Act,
cannot be accepted for the following reasons.
(a) Under Section 203 of Panchayat Act, the Inspector of Panchayat is
empowered to direct performance of any Act, which a Panchayat or
Executive Authority or Commissioner or Secretary is empowered to do.
None of the above authority are enjoying the cheques signing power.
b) Under Section 188 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994,
the cheques signing power is jointly given to the President and Vice
President. In other words, the cheques signing power is not exclusively
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
given to the Executive Authority of the Panchayat namely the President.
c) Under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the
Inspector of Panchayat is not entitled to direct performance of any Act
which the President and Vice President is entitled to do jointly. Therefore,
the 1st respondent is not entitled to withdraw the cheques signing power
available to the President and Vice President by exercising power under
Section 203 of the Act.
d) Further, withdrawal of the cheques signing power to the President
and Vice President of the Panchayat would virtually cripple them from
functioning as President or Vice President as the case may be. Such order
would virtually amount to removal of the elected persons from their post.
e) Under Section 205 of Panchayat Act, there is a specific provision
with procedure for removal of President and Vice President. In such
circumstances, the emergency power available to the Inspector of Panchayat
under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, cannot be
resorted to by the 1st respondent for withdrawing the cheques signing power.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
This Court already has taken a similar view in the above mentioned case law
and I agree with the view expressed in the case law cited above.
11. A reading of the impugned order would suggest that a Show
Cause Notice was given to the petitioner for her removal from the post of
President and it appears she appeared before the 1st respondent. But
however, it is mentioned that she failed to produce any documents.
12. Obviously, no Show Cause Notice has been issued to the
petitioner calling for her explanation regarding the proposed action for
withdrawal of cheques signing power. Therefore, without putting the writ
petitioner on notice about the proposal of the 1st respondent to withdraw the
cheques signing power, the impugned order has been passed based on the
notice issued seeking her explanation for removal from the post of
President.
13. In case of non-cooperation of the Vice President and other
Members of the Village Panchayat, under Section 204 (3) of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Act, 1994, the 1st respondent is empowered to authorise the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
President himself to withdraw the funds from the Village Panchayat
Account.
14. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order
cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order
impugned in this writ petition. The 1st respondent is directed to issue a Show
Cause Notice to the petitioner and Vice President of the Panchayat and
conduct an enquiry with regard to allegations of non-cooperation made by
the petitioner. Based on the findings on enquiry, it is open to the 1 st
respondent to proceed further in accordance with law. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
To
1.The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat
The District Collectorate Office,
Villupuram.
2.The Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayats
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Commissioner,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayats
Panagal Maligai, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
4.The Assistant Director (Panchayats)
District Collectorate Office,
Villupuram.
W.P.No.20046 of 2023
5.The Block Development Officer,
Olakkur Union,
Tindivanam Taluk,
Villupuram District.
14.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
