Madras High Court
P.Rangaraj vs The Director on 23 June, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P No.18751 of 2023
and W.M.P No.17999 of 2023
P.Rangaraj Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director,
Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
2.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore.
3.The Assistant Director (Panchayat/Auditor)
Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Coimbatore North Taluk,
Coimbatore District.
5.The Block Development Officer,
Periyanaickenpalayam Panchayat Union,
Coimbatore, SKRU Post,
Coimbatore – 641 020. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records pertaining to the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2574/2021/A3 dated 12.05.2023
served on the petitioner on 14.06.2023 and the consequential proceedings of the
4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.6484/2022/Aa1 dated 15.06.2023 served on the
petitioner on 19.06.2023 and quash the same as illegal and ultravires.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Singaravelan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran
Additional Advocate General
assist by
Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R4
Mr.G.Krishna Raja
Additional Government Pleader for R5
ORDER
Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General takes notice on
behalf of the respondents 1 to 4.
2.Mr.G.Krishna Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes
notice on behalf of the 5th respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition pertains to the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 12.05.2023, wherein, the 2nd respondent
has directed the Tahsildar viz., 4th respondent to convene the meeting under
Section 205(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Act”) for consideration of the notice and the explanation given by the
petitioner wherein, there is a proposal for the removal of the petitioner who is
the President of the Somaiyapalayam Panchayat. The petitioner has also
challenged the consequential proceedings of the 4th respondent dated
15.06.2023, which is the notice issued to the members of the panchayat calling
for the meeting to deal with the proposal for the removal of the petitioner.
4.Heard Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.G.Krishna Raja, learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent.
5.The main ground that was raised by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the 2 nd respondent through the
impugned proceedings dated 12.05.2023 has directed the Tahsildar to convene
the meeting without even assigning any reasons as to why he was not satisfied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with the explanation given by the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the petitioner had submitted his explanation along with all the
relevant documents and if the 2nd respondent was not satisfied with the same,
the petitioner should have been called for an enquiry and the petitioner would
have explained his defense for the charges framed against him and as to how it
is not sustainable.
6.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the 2nd respondent
has come to a conclusion that the charges against the petitioner has been proved
which is evident from the impugned proceedings dated 12.05.2023. It was
therefore contended that the final opinion that has to be arrived at by the
District Collector under Section 205 (11) of the Act has been reached even at
the stage of Section 205(2) of the Act.
7.The other ground that was urged by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the entire scheme of the Act does
not provide for an opportunity for the petitioner to explain on the charges
framed against him and Section 205 (8-A) prevents even a debate in the
meeting and consequently, the petitioner has to face an adverse decision at the
end without there being any opportunity for the petitioner to put forth his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defence except the initial explanation given by the petitioner to the Collector
along with the relevant documents.
8.The learned Senior Counsel also questioned the impugned notice
issued by the 4th respondent calling for the meeting on the ground that there is
no indication that the members have been given the charges framed against the
petitioner, explanation given by the petitioner along with the relevant
documents and the opinion that was arrived at by the Collector before directing
the Tahsildar to convene the meeting.
9.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on
behalf of the respondents submitted that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent
is perfectly in line with Section 205(2) of the Act. That apart, the proceedings
of the 4th respondent calling for the meeting is also perfectly in line with
Section 205(3). The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the
petitioner has been provided with an opportunity to give his explanation along
with all the supporting documents. On going through the same, the 2nd
respondent was not satisfied with the explanation and therefore, the 2 nd
respondent had directed the 4th respondent to convene the meeting of the
members. It was contended that Section 205(2) does not contemplate any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
detailed order to be passed by the Collector while arriving at his opinion and it
is enough if the Collector had applied his mind on the charges framed and the
explanation given. It was further contended that the Collector cannot give any
detailed opinion at such a preliminary stage and the Collector can only take into
consideration the prima facie materials. The real application of mind on the part
of the Collector to come to a final conclusion is only reached at the stage
Section 205 (11) of the Act. While undertaking that exercise, the Collector has
been given the power to reach one decision or the other and it is at that point of
time, the Collector is expected to assign his reasons, since the act preferred by
the Collector under Section 205 is quasi judicial in nature. The learned
Additional Advocate General therefore contended that the impunged
proceedings does not suffer from any illegality and it is perfectly in line with
the provisions of the Panchayat Act and that the petitioner has to necessarily
await for the final decision to be taken by the members in the meeting. The
learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in spite of the opinion
expressed by the Collector, the members may decide to take a different view
and therefore, the petitioner cannot jump to any conclusion at this point of time.
Accordingly, the learned Additional Advocate sought for the dismissal of this
writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is
sufficiently dealt with in the earlier order that was passed by this Court in
W.P.No.11429 of 2023. This Court interfered with the proceedings of the 4th
respondent who had issued notice to the members for convening a meeting.
Such interference was made by this Court on the ground that the Collector
without forming any opinion on the explanation given by the petitioner, had
straight away directed the Tahsildar to convene the meeting. This Court
therefore found that there is a clear infraction of Section 205(2) of the Act
which mandates the Collector to record his opinion before directing the
Tahsildar to convene a meeting. Accordingly, this Court disposed of the writ
petition directing the Collector who is the Inspector of Panchayat to strictly
follow the procedure under Section 205(2) of the Act.
11.Pursuant to the above order, the Collector has issued proceedings
dated 12.05.2023. The opinion that was expressed by the Collector and the
direction given to the Tahsildar to convene the meeting, as found in the
proceedings dated 12.05.2023 is extracted hereunder:
Cuhl;rpfspd; Ma;thsh;/khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth;
vd;w Kiwapy; nrhikahk;ghisak; Cuhl;rp
kd;wj;jiyth; jpU/gp/u';fuh$; vd;gth; kPJ jkpH;ehL
Cuhl;rpfs; rl;lk; 1994-k; Mz;L rl;lg;gphpt[ 205-d; fPH;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Vw;gLj;jg;gl;;l Fw;wr;rhl;LfSf;F jdpauhy;
mspf;fg;gl;; tpsf;fk; Vw;g[ilajhf ,y;iy kw;Wk;
midj;J Fw;wr;rhl;LfSk; epU::gzkhfpwJ/ nkYk;
neulp tprhuizapYk; jdpauJ tpsf;fk; Vw;g[ilajhf
,y;yhj fhuzj;jpdhy;. jkpH;ehL Cuhl;rpfs; rl;lk;
1994-k; Mz;L gphpt[ 205 cl;gphpt[ (2)d;glp nky;
eltlpf;if bjhlug;gLk; vd nrhikak;ghisk;
Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth; jpU/gp/u';fuh$; vd;gtUf;F
,jd; K:yk; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
12.The 4th respondent pursuant to the directions given by the District
Collector, has issued notice to the members for convening a meeting through
proceedings dated 15.06.2023 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
nrhikak;ghisk; Cuhl;rp jpU/bg/u';fuh$;
Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth; kPJ Vw;gLj;jg;gl;;l
Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; epU::gzkhdjhy; jkpH;ehL Cuhl;rpfs;
rl;lk; 1994 rl;lg;gphpt[ 205(2)-d; glp fUj;Jf;nfl;g[
Tl;lk; elj;jp tphpthd mwpf;ifapid mDg;gp
itf;f ghh;it 12,y; fhz; flpjj;jpd;glp
nfhug;gl;Ls;sjd; bjhlh; elglpf;ifahf 26/06/2023
md;W khiy 3/00 kzpastpy; nrhikak;ghisk;
Cuhl;rp kd;w mYtyfj;jpy; nfhak;g[j;J}h; tlf;F
tl;lhrpah; jiyikapy; eilbgw cs;s Tl;lj;jpy;
nrhikak;ghisk; Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth; cl;gl
midj;J cWg;gpdj;fSk; jtwhJ fye;J bfhs;SkhW
,jd; K:yk; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpd;wJ/
13.On a careful reading of Section 205(2) of the Act, it can be seen that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the District Collector who is the Inspector of Panchayat is only expected to
come to a prima facie conclusion while recording his opinion. There is nothing
inherent under Section 205(2) to direct the Collector to pass any detailed order
for coming to an opinion that he is not satisfied with the explanation given by
the President. It must be borne in mind that the Collector has to merely consider
the explanation received from the President along with the relevant materials, if
any and record his opinion. The Collector may either drop further action, if he
is satisfied or if he is not satisfied with the explanation, can record his opinion
that he is not satisfied with the explanation and thereafter, can direct the
Tahsildar to proceed further by issuing notice to the members for convening a
meeting for consideration of the proposal for the removal of the President.
14.The District Collector, who is the Inspector of Panchayats while
expressing his opinion, is not expected to come to any final conclusion on the
charges framed against the President. He has to merely state that he is not
satisfied with the explanation and thereafter, place the matter before the
members by directing the Tahsildar to convene a meeting. It is thereafter for the
members to consider the materials before them and record their views during
the meeting as contemplated under Section 205(10) of the Act. The decision
that is arrived at by the members is expected to be independent and it must be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
only based on the materials that are placed before them. The members are not
bound by the opinion/satisfaction that was arrived at by the Collector under
Section 205(2) and they can always express their independent view based on
the materials placed before them. For this to happen, the Tahsildar is expected
to place all the materials viz., the charges framed against the President, the
explanation given by the President along with the materials and the opinion of
the Collector and the members are expected to go through the same and express
their view.
15.After the members express their view under Section 205(10) of the
Act, the Tahsildar has to forward the same to the District Collector who is the
Inspector of Panchayat. Then comes the most crucial part played by the District
Collector under Section 205(11) of the Act.
16.Section 205(11) of the Act was put to challenge before this Court and
it was referred to the Full Bench in The District Collector and Inspector of
District Panchayat Villupuram District & Others Versus Devi Parasuraman
& Others reported in 2009 4 CTC 609 and the provision was upheld. Whileso,
the Full Bench had gone into the scope of 205(11) and it was held that the
Inspector of Panchayat has to evaluate the entire materials including the views
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
expressed by the members of the panchayat and the final order should contain
reasons which actually prompted the Inspector of Panchayat to take a decision
one way or the other. The Full Bench also reiterated the concern that was
expressed by the Apex Court to the effect that the elected members cannot be
removed from public office very casually, since it will shake the confidence of
the common man in the very system and the local self-Government will loose
its significance.
17.The matter once again came up before the Division Bench of this
Court assailing the constitutional validity of Section 205 (11) of the Act. The
Division Bench took note of the judgment of the Full Bench and reiterated the
position of law. In view of the same, Section 205(11) continues to hold the field
and the scope of Section 205(11) has been spoken both by the Full Bench as
well as the Division Bench of this Court.
18.The actual role of the District Collector who is the Inspector of
Panchayat comes to the forefront only at the stage under Section 205(11) of the
Act. That is the stage where the Inspector of Panchayat is expected to pass a
reasoned order while taking a decision one way or the other. That stage is yet to
reach in this case and it will happen only after the meeting is convened and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
members express their views.
19.The opportunity that is given to a Panchayat President under the
scheme of the Act is more in the nature of giving an explanation for the charges
along with all the materials. Unfortunately, by virtue of Section 205(8-A) of the
Act, there can be no debate in any meeting. Therefore, the Panchayat President
against whom the proceedings are initiated will not be able to really speak
about his stand regarding the charges framed against him and what is actually
considered by the members during the meeting is the explanation that is given
by the Panchayat President along with the supporting materials. This provision
has not been put to challenge till now and hence, with the available frame work
under Section 205 of the Act, there is no scope for a Panchayat President to
personally put-forth his case in the meeting.
20.There is yet another stage where the Panchayat President will get an
opportunity. That is the stage where the members of the panchayat vote against
the removal of the President and that is sought to be reversed by the District
Collector who is the Inspector of Panchayat under Section 205(11) of the Act.
At that point of time, the will of the members of the Council is sought to be
reversed by the District Collector and hence, it definitely requires an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
opportunity to be given to the Panchayat President before any adverse order is
passed while not accepting the views of the members of the panchayat.
Accordingly, this is the extent up to which a Panchayat President gets an
opportunity with the present scheme of Section 205 of the Act.
21.This Court has already held that a District Collector is not expected to
pass a detailed order for coming to an opinion that the explanation given by the
Panchayat President is not satisfactory. The reason as to why the District
Collector should not express his mind in that manner while passing an order is
that it will have an impact on the views expressed by the members even though,
the members are expected to independently give their views. Hence, the
opinion that has been expressed by the 2nd respondent in the impugned
proceedings dated 12.05.2023, satisfies the requirement under Section 205(2)
of the Act. However, there is a surplusage in the language that has been used by
the District Collector. The relevant portion has been extracted supra. The
District Collector apart from stating that he is not satisfied with the explanation
also goes on to say that all the charges have been proved against the petitioner.
However, opinion of this nature cannot be expressed by the District Collector at
the stage of Section 205(2) of the Act. As a result of this opinion recorded by
the District Collector, the Tahsildar while issuing a notice to the members
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
through proceedings dated 15.06.2023 has once again reiterated the same in the
notice as if the charges against the petitioner has been proved and the same has
been informed to the members.
22.As already held by this Court, the members are not bound by the
opinion of the District Collector and they are expected to independently assign
their view under Section 205(10) of the Act. Therefore, even though the District
Collector had expressed an opinion in the impugned proceedings dated
12.05.2023 as if the charges have been proved, the same is really not binding
on the members while they take their views and express it at the stage of
205(10) of the Act.
23.In the considered view of this Court, just because the District
Collector had added to his opinion that the charges have been proved, that by
itself cannot be a ground for this Court to interfere with the impugned
proceedings dated 12.05.2023. As already stated, the members will not be
bound by such an opinion and they will take an independent view based on the
materials placed before them.
24.The 4th respondent through proceedings dated 15.06.2023 has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
convened a meeting on 26.06.2023. The 4th respondent is expected to send
along with the notice the charges framed against the petitioner, the explanation
given by the petitioner along with the relevant documents and the opinion
arrived at by the District Collector. At the risk of repetition, this Court holds
that the opinion of the District Collector as if the charges have been proved is
not binding on the members and the only opinion that will be placed before the
members in the meeting is that the District Collector was not satisfied with the
explanation given by the petitioner. Based on the same, it is left open to the
members to take a decision. If the 4th respondent viz., the Tahsildar has not
supplied the necessary materials along with the notice issued to the members, it
is left open to the Tahsildar to withdraw the impugned notice dated 15.06.2023
and issue a fresh notice by convening a fresh meeting after supplying all the
materials indicated supra to the members. The notice period as contemplated
under Section 205 of the Act shall be fulfilled, if a fresh meeting is going to be
called for. This observation is made by this Court to ensure that the meeting
convened on 26.06.2023 does not get vitiated due to non-supply of the
materials along with the notice dated 15.06.2023 issued to the member for
convening the meeting on 26.06.2023.
25.The proceedings as it stands today is not liable to be interfered by this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court at this stage. If at a future point of time, the petitioner finds any infraction
of the mandatory provision under Section 205 of the Act, it will always be open
to the petitioner to question the same in the manner known to law.
26.This writ writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.06.2023
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes
ssr
To
1.The Director,
Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
2.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore.
3.The Assistant Director (Panchayat/Auditor)
Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The Tahsildar,
Coimbatore North Taluk,
Coimbatore District.
5.The Block Development Officer,
Periyanaickenpalayam Panchayat Union,
Coimbatore, SKRU Post,
Coimbatore – 641 020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
W.P No.18751 of 2023
and W.M.P No.17999 of 2023
23.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
