Madras High Court
Durgadevi Venkatesan vs The District Collector on 21 September, 2023
W.P.No.24920 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.No.24920 of 2023
and WMP.Nos.24345 and 24347 of 2023
Durgadevi Venkatesan,
Panchayat President,
Palayanur Village Panchayat,
Palayanur Village and Post,
Tiruvannamalai.
... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.
3.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats),
Thiruvannamalai Block,
Thiruvannamalai.
4.Thiru Maria Dev Anand,
Block Development Officer,
Thiruvannamalai Block,
Thiruvannamalai.
... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24920 of 2023
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
proceedings in Se.Mu.No.1587/2020/A2/UE (U)thi.ko dated 24.07.2023
issued by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi
For Respondents : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar
Government Advocate
for R1 and R2
Mr.C.Selvaraj
Additional Government Pleader
for R3
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 1st
respondent withdrawing the cheque signing power of the petitioner, who is
a President of Panchayat and transferring the same in favour of 4th
respondent.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the
impugned order mainly on the ground that the cheque signing power of
President or Vice President of the Panchayat is statutory power conferred
on them under Section 188 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24920 of 2023
the same cannot be withdrawn by the 1st respondent except as provided
under the Act. It is further submitted that unless the resolution is passed by
the Panchayat authorising a member of the Panchayat to sign the cheques on
behalf of the President or Vice President as the case may be, the 1st
respondent is not entitled to withdraw the statutory power available to the
petitioner.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st
respondent submitted that there are allegations of misappropriation of funds
by the petitioner and therefore the 1st respondent was constrained to pass
impugned order by invoking emergency powers of the Inspector of
Panchayat under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
4. In support of his contention, the learned Government
Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent also relied on the judgment of this
Court in P.Suganthi Vs. The District Collector cum Inspector of
Panchayats, Thoothukudi District, reported in 2011 (2) CTC 381.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24920 of 2023
5. Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994,
reads as follows:-
“188 (3). Subject to such general control as the Village Panchayat may
exercise from time to time, all cheques for payment from Village Panchayat Fund
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
President and another member authorised by the Village Panchayat at a meeting
in this behalf.”
6. A reading of above provision would make it clear that
cheques for payment out from the village Panchayat fund can be jointly
signed by President and Vice President in the absence of the President or
Vice-President, as the case may be, by another member authorised by the
Village Panchayat at a meeting in this behalf. Therefore, the power
available to the President or Vice President is statutory power and the same
can be taken away only by way of an resolution passed by the Village
Panchayat authorising any other member of Panchayat and not by an order
of the 1st respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24920 of 2023
7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st
respondent is not in a position to point out any enabling provision in Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 empowering the 1st respondent to take away the
cheque signing power of the President and Vice President and confer the
same on the Block Development Officer. Admittedly, in the case on hand,
no resolution was passed by the Village Panchayat authorising any other
Member of the Panchayat to sign the cheques on behalf of the President or
Vice President. The 1st respondent is not justified in passing impugned
order withdrawing the cheque signing power and transferring the same to
the 4th respondent when there is no enabling provision in the Panchayat Act.
The said view was taken by this Court in Logeswari vs. The District
Collector, Tiruchirappalli reported in 2013 (2) CTC 846 wherein it is held
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24920 of 2023
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.
.... .... .... ....
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.”
8. It is also seen from the impugned order, before passing the
order withdrawing the cheque signing power of the petitioner, the 1st
respondent has not issued any show cause notice to the petitioner affording
an opportunity to explain the case.
9. In the impugned order there is a reference about issuance of
show cause notice regarding action to be taken against petitioner under
Section 205 of Panchayat Act. The impugned order further reads, even
though direction was issued to Tahsildar to convene a meeting, there was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24920 of 2023
further progress. Hence, it is clear no show cause notice was issued to
petitioner regarding proposal to withdraw her cheque signing power.
Therefore, principle of natural justice principles are violated. In
P.Suganthi case cited by learned Government Advocate, the Division
Bench of this Court sustained an order withdrawing cheque signing power
as show cause notice regarding proposal to withdraw cheque signing power
preceded the order. In the case on hand, no such notice was issued to the
petitioner regarding proposal to withdraw cheque signing power. The
notice issued regarding action to be taken under Section 205 is entirely
under different circumstances, because the same will be finally considered
by Panchayat before any action is taken against the petitioner. On the other
hand withdrawal of cheque signing power is exercised by 1st respondent
himself. In such circumstances, it is his duty to inform the petitioner
regarding proposed action of withdrawal of cheque signing power and seek
her explanation. When there is no specific show cause notice by 1 st
respondent regarding proposal of withdrawal of cheque signing power, the
case law relied on by the learned Government Advocate is not helpful to
him to sustain the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24920 of 2023
10. Reading of impugned order would suggest in pursuance of
order passed by the 1st respondent, his Subordinate, namely Tahsildar failed
to convene meeting of Panchayat for taking action against the petitioner. In
such circumstances, the first respondent instead of pursuing proceedings
already initiated against petitioner, is not justified in passing impugned
order withdrawing cheque signing power that too without specifically
putting petitioner on notice regarding proposed action.
11. It is seen that earlier the 3rd respondent passed an order
dated 13.10.2022 directing the bank in which the accounts of the Panchayat
are maintained to freeze all the bank accounts. Therefore, the petitioner is
prevented from operating the accounts of the Panchayat. In such
circumstances, the reasoning given by the 1st respondent for passing
impugned order, as if the developmental activities of the Panchayat are
staled for the past eight weeks cannot be accepted, when the accounts of
Panchayat were already freezed and there is no possibility for the petitioner
to withdraw from the Panchayat account and utilise the same for
developmental activities. Hence, reasoning found in the impugned order is
also not acceptable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24920 of 2023
12. In view of the discussions made earlier, this writ petition
stands allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
21.09.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24920 of 2023
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
To
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.
3.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats),
Thiruvannamalai Block,
Thiruvannamalai.
4.Thiru Maria Dev Anand,
Block Development Officer,
Thiruvannamalai Block,
Thiruvannamalai.
W.P.No.24920 of 2023
21.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
