IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07/02/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
WRIT PETITION No. 22784 OF 2001
AND
W.P.M.P.NO.18612 OF 2002
M.R. Sridhar
President,
Village Forest Committee,
Manali Village, Arani Post,
Gummidipoondi Taluk,
Tiruvallur District. .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Collector,
Tiruvallur District,
Tamil Nadu
2. The Principal Chief Forest
Conservator,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai 15.
3. The Forest Conservator,
Chennai Division,
DMS Complex, Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018.
4. The District Forest Officer,
Inter Space Forest Division,
Jaya Nagar, Tiruvallur Dist.,
Tamil Nadu.
5. The Forest Ranger,
Inter Space Forest Division,
Range III, Jaya Nagar,
Tiruvallur.
6. M.R. Kamalanathan,
S/o. Radhakrishnan,
Manali Village, Arani Post,
Gummidipoondi Taluk,
Tiruvallur District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr. Doraisamy for
Mr.V. Sivakumar
For Respondent-1 : Mr.K. Muralidharan
For Respondents 2-5 : Mr. V.S. Sethuraman
Special Govt. Pleader(Forest)
Respondent-6 : Mr.C.R. Dhasarathan
:J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has prayed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents not to appoint Mr. Kamalanathan (subsequently impleaded as
respondent No.6) as the President for Village Forest Committee and to allow
the petitioner to proceed with the implementation of Tamil Nadu Forest
Development Scheme for Manali village.
2. Under G.O.Ms.No.342 dated 8-8-1997, the Government has decided to
implement TamilNadu Afforestation Project. It is contemplated that Village
Forest Councils would be constituted and each Village Forest Council shall
elect a Executive Committee. The members of the Executive Committee has to
elect President from among themselves, who would also become the Ex-officio
President of Village Forest Committee and the Forest Ranger would be the
Member Secretary of the Executive Committee. The Forest Ranger is to
facilitate the election process of the members and President of the Executive
Committee. The Executive Committee is reasonable for day to-day activities of
the Village Forest Committee. Clause 8 of the aforesaid G.O., relates to
Monitoring and Clause 8.1 being relevant, is extracted hereunder :-
8.1. The District/Divisional Forest Officer concerned will monitor
the functioning of the E.C. of the V.F.C. in his jurisdiction and send
monthly report to the Conservator of Forests. He will also have the authority
to disband the committees and order for reconstitution if in his view, the
committees are not discharging their duties properly. He will do so only
after giving adequate opportunities to the committee members, except the
Member Secretary, who may be dealt with under disciplinary rules. He will
also be the Appellate authority against the orders of E.C. expelling a member
of E.C./V.F.C.
3. The petitioner claims that he was elected as the President
of the Village Forest Committee on 17.5.2001 in a meeting held in the presence
of Forest Ranger. However, the other official respondents, namely the third
and fourth respondents are implementing various schemes without consulting the
petitioner, the President of Village Forest Committee, and other committee
members.
4. In the counter affidavit it has been indicated by the
respondents 2,3 & 4 in paragraph 3 :
. . . the Petitioner herein initially helped us in forming the
Village Forest Committee and was temporarily selected as V.F.C. President by
the Executive Committee comprising of 18 members. This selection was not a
Permanent one and hence it was not approved by me. The writ Petitioner while
functioning the Village Forest Committee activities has not co-operated with
the Committee. . .
It has been further stated in paragraph 4 :
… As the petitioners performance was not up to the satisfaction
of the village peiople and they preferred complaints against him for his
non-function. He is not able to perform his duties and also indulged in
creating problems by misuse of this V.F.C. I respectfully state that on
14.08.2001 one Mr. Kamalanathan was elected as President and 24 as members.
The election of President and others were conducted as per guidelines
prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.342 E and F dated 8.8 .97 and their names have been
approved in the Micro Plan and with his consultation all the Work are carried
out and completed to the full satisfaction of the superiors and village
people.
5. The aforesaid Kamalanathan on his own petition has been
impleaded as a party and has filed a counter affidavit. He has stated in
paragraph 5 as follows :-
I submit that the petitioner has no longer remained to be a good
president for the committee and he failed (to) carry-out his obligation
towards our village and the Government. After experiencing the bad activities
of the petitioner our villagers had voted against the petitioner for the post
of President. Now, the petitioner no more the president of our panchayat and
the village committee….
6. A perusal of the aforesaid assertions makes it clear that
the petitioner had been elected as the President of the Village Forest
Committee. Even though it is asserted by the respondents 2 to 5 that the
petitioner was temporarily selected, there is no such document or order
produced before this Court. On the other hand the order signed by the Forest
Ranger itself indicates that the petitioner had been elected. No doubt clause
8.1 of the G.O., which is already extracted, gives certain power to the
District Forest Officer, but such power has to be exercised after giving show
cause notice. Merely because some allegations have been made, the District
Forest Officer cannot proceed to remove a functionary of the Village Forest
Committee or the Executive Committee without following the procedure indicated
in clause 8.1 of the G.O..
7. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show
that the petitioner after being elected as the President has been lawfully
removed from such office by following the procedure contemplated under clause
8.1.. Since the President is elected by the members of the Executive
Committee, in the absence of any other provision, it is reasonable to assume
that such members of the Executive Committee can also remove the President by
subsequent resolution. In the present case, no materials have been produced
before this Court to show that such a procedure has been adopted.
8. In such view of the matter, in normal course, I would have
allowed the petitioner to continue as the President. However, the main
intention under the G.O., is for the purpose of smooth running of the Village
Forest Committee. Even though a person, who is elected as the member of the
Committee or the President, has right to continue and to hold such office, the
intention is to have a smooth running for the purpose of development. In the
present case, from the materials available on record, it appears that
subsequently another Committee has been formed of which respondent No.6 has
been elected as the President. In this scenario of having two parallel
committees, it cannot be expected that Village Forest Committee can function
smoothly. Even though the petitioner has been elected as the President in May
2001, it is apparent that he has not been able to function because of the
subsequent election of the respondent No.6. The office held by the petitioner
even though is an elected office, is not an office of profit and no
proprietary right is infringed. Even though it is found that the respondents
were not justified in not allowing the petitioner to function, keeping in view
the wider interest for the purpose of development of schemes, it would be in
the interest of justice to direct that a new Village Forest Committee and a
new Executive Committee shall be constituted in accordance with the scheme and
a fresh election shall take place for the post of the President. There is no
embargo to consider the question of electing the petitioner or Respondent No.6
as the President of the Village Forest Com mittee and the Executive Committee.
This direction for reconstitution may be done within a period of six weeks
from the date of communication of the order. Till such a date, the Committee
headed by the respondent No.6 shall be allowed to function. The term of the
reconstituted committee shall be for the balance period or till the completion
of the scheme which ever is earlier.
9. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is
disposed of. No costs. WPMP.No.18612 of 2002 is closed.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
dpk
To
1. The District Collector,
Tiruvallur District,
Tamil Nadu
2. The Principal Chief Forest
Conservator,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai 15.
3. The Forest Conservator,
Chennai Division,
DMS Complex, Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018.
4. The District Forest Officer,
Inter Space Forest Division,
Jaya Nagar, Tiruvallur Dist.,
Tamil Nadu.
5. The Forest Ranger,
Inter Space Forest Division,
Range III, Jaya Nagar,
Tiruvallur.