BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17/09/2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
W.P.(MD)No.8312 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008
Dr.A.Manonmani Duraipandian
The Chairman,
Thiruppuvanam Panchayat Union,
Thiruppuvanam
Sivagangai District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2.The Assistant Director of
Panchayat,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai.
4.The Commissioner,
Thiruppuvanam Panchayat Union,
Thiruppuvanam,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
Prayer
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order of the third respondent in ref.Na.Ka.B4 No.6349 of 2008 dated
01.09.2008 and in ref.Na.Ka.B4.No.6349/2008 dated 02.09.2008 and quash the same.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.Veerakathiravan
^For Respondent ... Mr.Pala Ramasamy
Special Government Pleader
:ORDER
The writ petitioner is the Chairman of the Thiruppuvanam Panchayat
Union, Sivaganga District. She has filed the present writ petition challenging
the order dated 01.09.2008 and 02.09.2008, wherein and by which the third
respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivaganga directed to submit her remarks
on the motion of no confidence presented by 14 Panchayat Union Councillors and
also had convened a special meeting of the Panchayat Union Council on 19.09.2008
for discussing the said motion.
2. Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the procedure adopted by the third respondent Revenue Divisional
Officer is completely repugnant to Section 212 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act,
1994. He further submitted that in terms of Section 212(2), there is no
evidence to show that the motion was presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer
in person by two of the Councillors who are signatories to the motion.
According to him, reading of the correspondence shows that it has been forwarded
by the Assistant Director of Panchayat and therefore, this is the first flow in
the proceedings initiated by him.
3. The second submission was that in terms of Section 212(3) statement
of charges along with the motion will have to be given to her and she must be
given seven days’ time to submit her explanation. Even before her explanation
is received, the Revenue Divisional Officer had convened a meeting which is
improper. Apart from that, he also submitted that by convening a meeting on
04.09.2008, there was a violation under Section 212(5). For the reasons best
known to them, the said meeting was postponed and by the impugned notice the
meeting has been reconvened on 19.09.2008. For postponing the meeting, no
explanation was given by the respondents. Under Section 212(7), if he is unable
to preside over the meeting, reasons should be recorded for adjourning the
meeting and no such reasons are forthcoming. On these grounds the learned
counsel wanted to set aside the impugned notice.
4. He also submitted that the petitioner has been an elected
Chairman and belonged to a deprived section. But, she has not been allowed to
function for the last ten months without any justification. She had also
approached the District Collector for appropriate orders to transact the
business of the Panchayat Union. Even before any decision could be taken she is
being bounded out.
5. After careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
notice convening the meeting of the Panchayat Union Council members on
19.09.2008. It is for the petitioner to attend the said meeting and convince
the members to drop the move or secure the support of the majority.
6. The impugned notice dated 01.09.2008 clearly shows that the third
respondent Revenue Divisional Officer had referred to the proceedings of the
Assistant Director of Panchayat, Sivaganga, and on the basis of the said
communication, an explanation was sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, the
learned counsel presumes that the motion for no confidence was not handed over
in person to the Revenue Divisional Officer as required under Section 212(2).
7. This Court is unable to agree to the said submission. Because in
the communication dated 28.08.2008, sent by the Commissioner Panchayat Union
to the Chairman and all the members of the Panchayat Union Council, there is a
reference to the letter of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai dated
27.08.2008. A perusal of the said letter shows that on the basis of the Revenue
Divisional Officer’s letter only a meeting has been convened on 04.09.2008.
Further there is no material to show that no such no confidence motion was
given personally to the Revenue Divisional Officer. On the basis of the self
serving statement given by the petitioner, it cannot be presumed. Statutory
Authorities are expected to act within four corners of law and it is for the
petitioner to prove that there was deviation.
8. Even otherwise after the impugned notice dated 01.09.2008, the
petitioner had given her explanation dated 08.09.2008 in detail and had refuted
the charges levelled by the councillors against her. In view of that
explanation, no prejudice had caused to her by the notice for explanation given
by the authorities. She had given point by point reply to the charges levelled
against her by the councillors.
9. The second impugned Notice dated 02.09.2008 was issued under the
orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer. He had convened the meeting on
19.09.2008 which is clearly 15 days’ as prescribed under Section 212(5) of the
Act. Therefore, there is no infraction of the provisions of the act insofar as
convening of the meeting is concerned. The petitioner cannot be said to be
prejudiced, for the convening of the meeting.
10. On the contrary, what is now sought to be argued is that the
original meeting was convened on 04.09.2008 and that meeting was adjourned to
15.09.2008. For that adjournment, no reasons were given. This argument is self-
contradictory. The intention of Act is to give 15 days’ clear notice in terms
of Section 212(5). For the present meeting 15 days’ time from the date of the
notice had given to the councillors. Therefore, the petitioner cannot argue in
both ways. Firstly, that the meeting that was convened on 04.09.2008 was short
of notice period under the Act and secondly, the meeting was adjourned without
any justification. May realising that the meeting fell short of the statutory
requirement it might have been postponed.
11. Ultimately, the only question that remains to be answered is, if the
elected members of Panchayat Union Councillors wanted to exercise their power in
terms of Section 212 of the Act and that exercise has to be tested in the
context of procedural requirement contemplated under the Act.
12. This Court is of the view that there was no infraction of any
procedure. The petitioner cannot be stated to the prejudiced by the procedure
adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Consequently, this is a case where
the will of the councillors must prevail and not their charges or the counter
charges levelled against the petitioner should decided such an issue.
13. The learned council finally stated that the letter enclosed in the
typed set of papers at Page No.6, signed by the councillors was originally
addressed to the District Collector which was in turn forwarded to the Assistant
Director of Panchayat, who in turn had forwarded to the Revenue Divisional
Officer. This contention had already been dealt with elsewhere in the order.
14. This Court is unable to conclude on the basis of the photostat
copy produced before this Court which according to the petitioner is the only no
confidence motion, on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer and not any
other motion. On the basis of mere assertion made by the petitioner and
interdict the process of motion of no confidence in midway.
15. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived and
accordingly it stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
ba/sr
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2.The Assistant Director of
Panchayat,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai.
4.The Commissioner,
Thiruppuvanam Panchayat Union,
Thiruppuvanam,
Sivagangai District.