Madras High Court
K.Priya vs The District Collector on 15 June, 2023
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.7922 of 2023
K.Priya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
/The Inspector of Panchayats,
Pudukottai.
2.The Tahsildar,
O/o. Tahsildar,
Kandharvakottai Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats),
Kandharvakottai Panchayat Union,
Pudukottai District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3579/2022/A3(U), dated
03.10.2022 on the file of the respondent no.1 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently directing the respondent no.1 permit the petitioner to sign the
cheques of Old Kandharvakottai village Panchayat.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/31
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil
For M/s.Lajapathi Roy and Associates
For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Additional Government Pleader
rd
For 3 Respondent : Mr.S.Shanmugavel,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed in the nature of Ceritorified Mandamus
seeking records relating to an order dated 03.10.2022 in Na.Ka.No.
3579/2022/A3(U) on the file of the first respondent, District Collector/Inspector
of Panchayat, Pudukkottai and to interfere with the same and consequently,
direct the petitioner herein, K.Priya who is the Vice President of Old
Kandharvakottai Village Panchayat Union at Pudukkottai District to sign the
cheques.
2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has
stated that she has been elected as a member of Old Kandharvakottai Village
Panchayat in Pudukkottai District and thereafter, she has been selected as Vice
President of the said Panchayat. She is entitled to sign the Panchayat cheques as
one of the signatories along with the President of the Panchayat Union. This is
provided under Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
President of the Panchayat Union was one Rani Murugesan, who is not
impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition.
3.A perusal of the affidavit reveals that the petitioner herein/Vice
President and the said Rani Murugesan/President appear to have fundamental
differences of opinion on each and every issue. A perusal of the records
provided by the respondents reveals that the cheques for disbursement of salary
to the Class IV employees could not be done. Consequent to that, there was no
meeting even to sign those cheques.
4.On complaining that the President did not conduct meeting for ward
members and claiming that the husband of the President was interfering with
the acts of Panchayat and actually, was acting as the Panchayat President and
was misappropriating the funds of Panchayat, the petitioner herein had given a
complaint and also in her own affidavit stated that she has refused to sign the
cheques presented by the husband of the petitioner as the President. It is stated
that she had given a representation on 02.02.2022 to the first
respondent/District Collector. Thereafter, the Panchayat President had passed a
resolution on 22.08.2022, giving the cheque signing power to the fifth ward
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
member, S.Mallika. Complaining that this has violated her authority and that
her power to sign the cheques has been unlawfully taken away by the first
respondent, the writ petition has been filed seeking interference in that
particular order.
5.In the grounds in the writ petition, reliance was placed on two
judgments of this Court, one by the Hon’ble Division Bench reported in 2005 1
law weekly 506 in the case of Pugazhendran, President from Brammapuram
Village Panchayat, Katpadi Panchayat Union, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District
v. B.G.Balu and others and second is M.Ganapathy v. The District Collector
cum Inspector of Police, Panchayat, Kumaravel.M. And another reported in
2009 Writ Law Reporter 700.
6.In both the aforementioned judgments, reliance had been placed on the
dictum laid down that the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats should
independently apply his mind and come to a conclusion whether the resolution
passed withdrawing cheque signing power should be affirmed by him or not. In
fact, it has been stated that the District Collector should not be a rubber stamp
to a resolution already passed by the Panchayat, but should cause independent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
enquiry and thereafter, come to a conclusion.
7.When the writ petition came up for hearing, my learned Predecessor on
09.02.2023, had observed as follows:
“Notice of motion returnable by eight weeks. Private notice
is also permitted.
2.The specific stand of the petitioner is that the procedure
set out by the Hon'ble First Bench in Pugazhendran V. B.G.Balu
((2005) 1 LW 506) was not followed in this case.
3.I went through the contents of the impugned order. There is
nothing on record to show that the petitioner was specifically put
on notice before withdrawing her cheque signing power by the
District Collector. The violation of principles of natural justice is
apparent.”
8.To vacate the interim stay, the Block Development Officer who is the
third respondent in the writ petition, has filed W.M.P.(MD)No.7922 of 2023. In
the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it has been stated that the
petitioner herein had earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.23628 of 2022 seeking a
Mandamus directing the first respondent, District Collector to take action
against the respondents 5 and 6 therein, for misusing the power of the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
to sign on cheques. It was stated that the writ petition was dismissed by an
order dated 28.11.2022. It has been further stated that reasonable opportunity
had been granted to the petitioner giving her seven days time by a letter dated
14.09.2022, in which, the allegations of non co-operation of the petitioner were
clearly stated and the petitioner was granted an opportunity to reply to the said
show cause. It has been further stated that consequent to non co-operation of
the petitioner, the entire administration of the Panchayat had come to a
standstill. Therefore, the impugned order was passed by the first respondent. It
had also stated that the stay already granted should be vacated by this Court and
that the Panchayat should be permitted to function by cheques being signed by
two authorized individuals, namely, by the President and by the fifth ward
member who had been so nominated by a valid resolution of the Panchayat.
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments, quite apart
from stating the ground of non application of mind by the petitioner herein, also
pointed out that notice had not been served on the petitioner before the exercise
of power by the first respondent, District Collector to direct withdrawal of the
cheque signing power of the petitioner herein. The learned counsel further
stated that Section 203 of the Village Panchayat Act, 1994, under which the
said order was passed does not give that particular authority to the District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
Collector to withdraw the cheque signing power of the petitioner herein. It is
also complained that a cursory reading of the impugned order would show that
the District Collector had not applied his mind independently to the facts of the
case prior to the passing of the impugned order. It was also stated that there has
been no resolution of the Panchayat members and that the order has been
passed only on the basis of the recommendation made by the Block
Development Officer and that the recommendation has been blindly followed
by the District Collector.
10.The learned counsel insisted that the District Collector has no power
to issue such an order under Section 203 of the Act and also stated that the
order suffers owing to the fact that there is no independent application of mind
by the District Collector. Placing all these reasons, the learned counsel stated
that the writ petition should be allowed and that the petitioner should be
permitted to be one of the signatories to the cheques of the Panchayat.
11.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the
respondents, however, denied all these facts. It is the contention of the learned
Additional Advocate General that the first issue relating to non-issuance of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
notice is not correct and in that regard, records have been produced. It reflects
that on 11.07.2022, notice had been issued to the petitioner herein asking her to
reply and show cause as to why the cheque signing power should not be taken
away from her. Various allegations have been raised in that notice. The learned
Additional Advocate General, therefore, stated that since opportunity has been
granted, it cannot be stated that the order was passed without granting any
opportunity. It has been further pointed out that the order of interim stay was
granted primarily only on the ground that prior opportunity was not given to the
petitioner herein. With respect to the issue of non-application of the mind by the
first respondent/District Collector, learned Additional Advocate General stated
that reports from the Deputy Block Development Officer and from the Zonal
Deputy Block Development Officer had been received who had conducted
enquiry and on the basis of the records, the first respondent had examined those
records and had affirmed the findings. It had been stated that necessary
requirement has been complied with by the District Collector while passing the
said order. With respect to the authority under Section 203 of the Act, it has
been contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that it has to be
read in conjunction with Section 205 of the Act and stated that this is not a case
where the Vice President had been removed from the office. But it was a case
where the cheque signing power alone had been taken away for a temporary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
period. This order has been justified by stating that the entire activities of the
Panchayat have come to a standstill and there were expenditures to be incurred,
cheques had to be signed and non co-operation of the petitioner in refusing to
sign the cheques has necessitated the order to be passed. The learned Additional
Advocate General, therefore, supported the order and prayed that the order
should not be interfered with by this Court.
12.The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Pugazhendran, President from
Brammapuram Village Panchayat, Katpadi Panchayat Union, Katpadi
Taluk, Vellore District v. B.G.Balu and others reported in 2005-1-l.w. 506,
wherein it was stated as follows:
“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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
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 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.”
13.The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a judgment
passed by this Court in the case of T.Kumaravelu v. The Chief Executive
Officer and others reported in 2004-3-l.w. 171, wherein it was stated as
follows:
“14. A careful reading of Section 188(3) would go to show that
the power of the village panchayat to pass appropriate
resolution, authorising the President and another ward member
of the panchayat to sign the cheques, would be resorted to only
where the vice-president was absent, but not in a case where the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
vice-president omits or refuses to discharge his duties, as in the
instant case. In which event, such omission or refusal to carry out
the obligation to sign the cheques, would only attract Section 206
of the Act, warranting even an extreme consequence of removal of
the vice-president but it cannot be interfered with lightly through
a resolution by majority, which would otherwise be a violation of
the very spirit and object of the legislation. Once such an
omission and refusal to sign the cheque by the vicepresident is
brought to the notice of the Inspector of Panchayats, he is
empowered under the statute to seek an explanation from the
vicepresident and to proceed in accordance with law. If the
explanation is genuine and bonafide, namely that the vice-
president refuses to sign the cheque only to protect the interest of
the village panchayat fund the Inspector of panchayats may drop
further action; on the other hand, if the explanation is not
satisfactory, the Inspector of Panchayats can take further action
for removal of the vice president as contemplated under Section
206 of the Act, in which event the Inspector of Panchayats, by
resorting to the emergency power contemplated under Section
203 of the Act, can give appropriate permission to the village
panchayat to proceed further in the matter, taking note of the
situation and general condition warranted, and to exercise a
general control by the panchayat over the affairs of the
panchayat in order to maintain normal administration of the day
to day affairs of the panchayat.
15. The recommendations of the committee constituted for
rationalisation of the village panchayat accounts, which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
accepted in G.O.Ms.No.92, Rural Development (C.III)
Department, dated 26.3.1997, is also in tune with the principles
laid down in Section 206 of the Act. Even though the said
Government Order empowers the panchayat to authorise the
president and another ward member, such a resolution could be
passed only with the prior approval of the Inspector of
Panchayats, obtained in this regard, as provided in the
government order dated 26 .3.1997, which means that no
resolution could be passed without the prior approval of the
Inspector of Panchayats. Hence, the statute contemplates that if
the vice-president refuses to sign the cheque for the operation of
the village panchayat fund, it is obligatory on the part of the
president to seek the prior approval or permission from the
Inspector of Panchayats to proceed with the matter. In such event,
the Inspector, either exercising the powers conferred under
Section 206 of the Act, seek an explanation from the vice-
president as to the refusal to sign the cheques, or alternately
exercise the emergency powers vested on him under Section 203
of the Act referred to above, and pass appropriate directions as
temporary arrangement, in order to maintain the day to day
affairs of the panchayat. But, in no case the president can pass
any resolution without the prior approval of the Inspector of
Panchayats. Reading Sections 188(3), 203 and 206 of the Act
harmoniously, makes it clear that once prior approval or
permission to take action against the Vice President, who refuses
to sign the cheque, is sought for, a duty is cast on the Inspector of
Panchayats to seek an explanation from the vice-president and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the Inspector of Panchayats,
before proceeding further on the allegation of refusal to sign the
cheque against the vice-president, has to read the procedure
contemplated under Section 20 6(1) of the Act, into the procedure
provided under Section 188(3), before giving effect to any such
resolution. Pending such action, the Inspector of Panchayats is at
liberty to invoke emergency powers conferred Section 203 of the
Act.”
14.The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Logeswari v. The District Collector and
others reported in 2013 (2) CTC 846, wherein it was stated as follows:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
President or Vice President, the Collector cannot invoke
incidental or emergent powers to divest the elected
representatives of their statutory right.
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.
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.”
15.The ratio laid in the aforementioned judgments was answered by
learned Additional Advocate General who stated that in the instant case, notice
has been issued, time has been granted to give explanation and explanation was
not issued and thereafter, an enquiry report was obtained and only then,
following the procedure as laid down under the Act, the impugned order was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
passed withdrawing the cheque signing power of the petitioner herein.
16.I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced and
perused the relevant records.
17.The petitioner herein had been elected as the ward member of Old
Kandharvakottai Panchayat Union at Pudukkottai District. She had then the
privilege of being elected as Vice President of the said Panchayat. Even before
adverting to facts of the case, it must be stated that having being elected, it
required her to devote her time to repay the trust placed on her by those who
had voted for her not only as a ward member and thereafter, the ward members
had sat down and elected her as Vice President. There are certain duties, which
she had to perform. One of the primary duty which a Vice President has to
perform is to have the privilege of signing as joint signatory in all the cheques
which are issued by the Panchayat along with the President. Unfortunately, the
petitioner appears to have grievances with the President and also with the
husband of the President. For good measure, it is stated that the petitioner
herein has to her support her own brother. Thus, a situation had emanated where
neither the President nor the President acted in cohesion with each other, but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
rather have taken a decision to find faults and mistakes with the other person’s
performance rather than taking upon themselves to discharge the duty which
were to be discharged by them.
18.There is a very strange averment in the affidavit filed in support of the
writ petition that the husband of the President was misappropriating the
Panchayat funds. Misappropriation can occur only when cheques are issued.
Cheques could have been issued only when the petitioner could have signed
those cheques as a joint signatory. The petitioner should not have signed those
cheques. There is a further averment that the husband of the President coerced
the petitioner to sign the cheques. If on coercion, she were to sign cheques for
disbursing public money, then she does not deserve to be Vice President. She
should have taken a firm stand on all these aspects, particularly, issues relating
to the budget, accounts and money. There is no further responsibility thrust on
her. The first and only responsibility thrust on her is that she should ensure that
cheques are issued only for proper purposes and for the expenses which are
incurred for the Panchayat. The procedure is that the President and Vice
President will have to sign each and every cheque jointly. If one of them does
not sign a cheque, then that particular expenditure cannot be incurred. If it is an
unlawful expenditure, then the petitioner herein is well within her powers not to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
refuse to sign cheques. But a reading of the impugned order shows that cheques
relating to disbursement of salary to Class IV employees were also not signed
by the petitioner herein.
19.As a matter of fact, it had also been stated in the affidavit that the
petitioner had refused to sign cheques. Once there is a refusal for whatever
cause, then on that one ground itself, I hold that she should be removed as the
cheque signing authority and that the power should be divorced from her. There
cannot be a refusal to discharge an official duty by a public servant. There must
be an inclination to perform public duty. If there is an exercise of external
influence while discharging the public duty, the petitioner could very well have
approached the District Collector and given a representation in this regard. If
she feels that she is not capable of doing that and refuses to discharge public
duty, then without further enquiry, the authority to sign the cheque can be
removed and should be removed. There are provisions in the Act, which give
emergency powers to the Inspector of Panchayats to act when there is refusal to
sign the cheques.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
20.In this connection, let me extract Sections 188, 203 and 205 of the
Act.
188. Village Panchayat Fund.-1[(1)] The receipts which shall be
credited to the Village Panchayat Fund shall include-
[(a)the house-tax and any other tax or any cess or fees
levied under sections 171 and 172;]
3[(b)the profession tax levied by Village Panchayats under
Chapter IX-A;]
(c)4[***]
[(d) the proportionate share of the proceeds of the local
cess, local cess surcharge, surcharge on the duty on transfers of
property and entertainment tax received by the Village Panchayat
under Sections 169 and 175-A;]
(e)6[***]
(f) the taxes and tolls levied in the village under Sections
117 and 118 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 (Tamil
Nadu Act VIII of 1939);
(g) fees levied in public markets classified as Village
Panchayat markets after deducting the contributions, if any, paid
by the Village Panchayat to the Panchayat Union Council on the
scale fixed by the Government;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
(h) the contribution paid to the Village Panchayat by
Panchayat Union Councils in respect of markets classified as
Panchayat Union markets;
(i) fees for the temporary occupation of village sites, roads
and other similar public places or parts thereof in
the Panchayat Village ;
(j) fees levied by the Village Panchayat in pursuance of any
provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder;
(k) income from endowments and trusts under the
management of the Village Panchayat;
(l) the net assessment on service inams which are resumed
by the Government;
(m) 7[***]
(n) income derived from Panchayat Village fisheries;
(o) income derived from ferries under the management of
the Village Panchayat;
(p) unclaimed deposits and other forfeitures;
(q) a sum equivalent to the seigniorage fees collected by
the Government every year from persons permitted to quarry for
road materials in the Panchayat Village :
(r) all income derived from porambokes the user of which
is vested in the Village Panchayat;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
(s) where the Panchayat Village is in a ryotwari tract, all
income derived from trees standing on porambokes although the
user of the porambokes is not vested in the Village Panchayat;
(t) income from leases of Government property obtained by
the Village Panchayat;
(u) fines and penalties levied under this Act by the Village
Panchayat or at the instance or on behalf of the Village
Panchayat;
(v) all sums other than those enumerated above which
arise out of, or are received in aid of or for expenditure on any
institutions or services maintained or financed from the Village
Panchayat fund or managed by the Village Panchayat;
8[(w) such other moneys as may be specified by the
Government.]
9[(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), the Government may direct any Village Panchayat to
constitute separate funds to which shall be credited such receipt
as may be specified and such funds shall be applied and disposed
of in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) Subject to such general control as the Village Panchayat
may exercise from time to time, all cheques for payment from
Village Panchayat Fund 10[***] shall 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 the Vice President or the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
President and another member authorised by the Village
Panchayat at a meeting in this behalf.]”
“203. Emergency powers of Collector and Inspector.-
Subject to such control as may be prescribed, the Inspector or the
Collector may, in cases of emergency, direct or provide for the
execution of any work, or the doing of any act which a Panchayat
or Executive Authority or Commissioner or [Secretary] is
empowered to execute or do and the immediate execution or doing
of which is in his opinion necessary for the safety of the public and
may direct that the expense of executing such work or doing such
act shall be paid by the person having the custody of the Village
Panchayat Fund or the Panchayat Union (General) Fund or the
District Panchayat (General) Fund in priority to any other charges
against such Fund except charges for the service of authorised
loans.
“205. Removal of President.- (1) The Inspector-
(a)of his own motion, or
(b) on a representation in writing signed by not less than
two-thirds of the sanctioned strength of the Village Panchayat
containing a statement of charges against the President and
presented in person to the Inspector by any two of the members of
the Village Panchayat,
is satisfied that the President willfully omits or refuses to carry out
or disobeys any provision of this Act, or any Rule, bye-law,
Regulation or lawful order made or issued under this Act or
abuses any power vested in him, the Inspector shall, by notice in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
writing, require the President to offer within a specified date, his
explanation with respect to this acts of omission or commission
mentioned in the notice.
(2) If the explanation is received within the specified date
and the Inspector considers that the explanation is satisfactory, he
may drop further action with respect to the notice. If no
explanation is received within the specified date or if the
explanation received is in his opinion not satisfactory, he shall
forward to the Tahsildar of the taluk a copy of the notice referred
to in sub-section (1) and the explanation of the President if
received within the specified date with a proposal for the removal
of the President for ascertaining the views of the Village
Panchayat.
(3) The Tahsildar shall then convene a meeting for the
consideration of the notice and the explanation, if any and the
proposal for the removal of the President, at the office of the
Village Panchayat at a time appointed by the Tahsildar.
(4) A copy of the notice of the meeting shall be caused to be
delivered to the President and to all the members of the Village
Panchayat by the Tahsildar atleast seven days before the date of
the meeting.
(5) The Tahsildar shall preside at the meeting convened
under this section and no other person shall preside thereat. If,
within half an hour appointed for the meeting, the Tahsildar is not
present to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
adjourned to a time to be appointed and notified to the members
and the President by the Tahsildar under sub-section (6).
(6) If the Tahsildar is unable to preside at the meeting, he
may, after recording his reasons in writing, adjourn the meeting to
such other time as he may appoint. The date so appointed shall be
not later than thirty days from the date so appointed for the
meeting under sub-section (3). Notice of not less than seven clear
days shall be given to the members and the President of the time
appointed for the adjourned meeting.
(7) Save as provided in sub-sections (5) and (6), a meeting
convened for the purpose of considering the notice and the
explanation, if any and the proposal for the removal of the
President under this section shall not for any reason, be
adjourned.
(8) As soon as the meeting convened under this section is
commenced, the Tahsildar, shall read to the Village Panchayat the
notice of the Inspector and the explanation if any, of the President
1[and the proposal for the removal of the President], for the
consideration of which it has been convened.
[(8-A) There shall be no debate in any meeting under this
section].
(9) The Tahsildar shall not speak on the merits of the notice
or explanation nor shall be entitled to vote at the meeting.
(10) The views of the Village Panchayat shall be duly
recorded in the minutes of the meeting and a copy of the minutes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
shall forthwith on the termination of the meeting be forwarded by
the Tahsildar to the Inspector.
(11) The Inspector may, after considering the views of the
Village Panchayat in this regard, in his discretion either remove
the President from office by notification with effect from a date to
be specified therein or drop further action.
(12) The Government shall have power to cancel any
notification issued under sub-section (11) and may, pending a
decision on such cancellation, postpone the date specified in such
notification.
[(13) Any person in respect of whom a notification has been
issued under sub-section (11) removing from the office of
President shall, unless the notification is cancelled under sub-
section (12), be ineligible for election as President until the expiry
of three years from the date specified in such notification as
postponed by the order, if any, issued under sub-section (12)].”
21.All these provisions will have to be read in conjunction with each
other. In all these provisions, the authority is given to the Inspector of
Panchayats who is Collector of the particular District to act in an emergency
situation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
22.I really wonder at the wisdom of legislature who must have already
predicted that there would always be instances when the President and the Vice
President could be in loggerheads with each other and one of them would
refuse to sign cheques, particularly, cheques which are meant for public purpose
and for the benefit of Panchayat. It is under those circumstances that the
Inspector of Panchayats has been vested with emergency powers to step in to
regulate the functioning of the Panchayat. The manner in which such
functioning would be regulated is to authorise another individual to sign in the
place of the person who refuses to sign the cheque. The petitioner herein having
refused to sign the cheques cannot today complain when that power had been
divorced from her and handed over by a resolution to the fifth respondent
herein. Without going into a detailed examination of the facts, this preliminary
observation will have to be laid by this Court.
23.Now when the facts are examined, it is apparent that on 11.07.2022, a
notice has been issued to the petitioner herein. In that particular notice, it had
been very specifically stated that seven days time is granted to the petitioner to
reply to the notice. The petitioner had not replied to the said notice. Thereafter,
it is seen from the records that enquiry was also made by the Block
Development Officer on 30.07.2022 and the same had been placed before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
District Collector.
24.The impugned order will now have to be examined to determine
whether there is application of mind by the District Collector. The relevant
portion of the impugned order is as follows:
“jw;NghJ Cuhl;rpapy; fhNrhiyapy; Cuhl;rp kd;wj;
jiytu; kw;Wk; Jizj;jiytu; ifnahg;gk; ,Ljy; (Joint
Signature) eilKiwapy; cs;s epiyapy; jkpo;ehL
Cuhl;rpfs; rl;lk; 1994> gpupT 203-,y; gb khtl;l
Ml;rpau;/Cuhl;rpapd; Ma;thsUf;F toq;fg;gl;Ls;s mtrufhy
mjpfhuj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; gioa fe;ju;tNfhl;il fpuhk
Cuhl;rp kd;wj; Jizj;jiytu; jpUkjp.Nf.gpupah
Jizj;jiytuhfNt njhluTk;> gioa fe;ju;tNfhl;il fpuhk
Cuhl;rp epu;thfk; njha;tpd;wp nray;glTk;> fpuhk Cuhl;rpapy;
guhkupf;fg;gl;LtUk; midj;J kj;jpa kw;Wk; khepy muR jpl;l
fzf;Ffs; njhlu;ghd fhNriyfs; kw;Wk; PPA Mtzq;fspy;
,uz;lhk; ifnahg;gkpLk; mjpfhuj;ij gioa
fe;ju;tNfhl;il Cuhl;rp kd;wj;jiytUld; ,ize;J kW
cj;juT tUk; tiu jw;fhypfkhf gioa fe;ju;tNfhl;il
Cuhl;rp 5tJ. thu;L cWg;gpdu; jpUkjp.Nr.ky;ypfh vd;gtUf;F
mDkjpj;J ,jd;top cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.
,r;nray;Kiwapidg; ngw;Wf;nfhz;likf;F cld;
xg;Gjy; mspj;jpl njuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
25.The issue whether there has been independent application of mind is
quite a nebulous issue. There is a report already available. The Collector
peruses the report and the Collector then affirms that what is stated in that
report is, to his understanding in order, and has to be acted upon. Subjective
satisfaction is something which could not be determined or stated in a straight
jacket formula. There could be instances where merely because the report is
repeated verbatim, it could not be concluded that there has been independent
application of mind. There could be also be instances where the earlier report of
the Block Development Officer is written down and then, the District Collector
states that having read it, he affirms the conclusion therein. This could also be
application of mind. There is no particular formula in which a particular
authority or a Quasi Judicial Authority should record his observations to
indicate that there has been independent application of mind.
26.In the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the Bench therein was of the opinion that there was no independent application
of mind. This cannot be a ratio decidendi. It is an observation made on the facts
of that particular case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
27.The facts of this particular case have to be examined and the relevant
portion has been extracted supra. It would, therefore, be evident to regulate the
authority of the Panchayat cheque signing power. The procedure required is,
notice to be issued, notice had been issued. Reply has to be given but reply has
not been given. Thereafter, an enquiry had to be conducted. An enquiry has
been conducted. That enquiry should be examined by the District Collector. The
same was examined by the District Collector. The impugned order came to be
passed.
28.In the impugned order, it had been stated that the measure was only
for a temporary period. The impugned order was passed on 03.10.2022. Let me
restrict that particular period from this day to another period of two weeks,
since the petitioner has not signed the cheques continuously though there has
been a stay. Therefore, from the date of this particular report, even though the
period had not been given in the impugned order, till 30.06.2023, the order
shall be in force and thereafter, the petitioner is permitted to sign the cheques.
29.The other statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
spite of the stay of the order, the petitioner was not permitted to sign the
cheques cannot be examined by this Court in the course of this writ petition.
The petitioner can take appropriate steps to address that particular fact.
30.The relief sought in the writ petition is rejected, but a direction is
given that the order shall remain in force only till 30.06.2023. Consequent to
that restriction of the order, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Mrn
To
1.The District Collector,
/The Inspector of Panchayats,
Pudukottai.
2.The Tahsildar,
O/o. Tahsildar,
Kandharvakottai Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats),
Kandharvakottai Panchayat Union,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
Pudukottai District.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Mrn
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2695 of 2023
15.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
