IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 24-02-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.26486 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 S.Sumathi .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The District Collector, Collector Office, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. 2.The Block Development Officer (V.P), Palakode Taluk & Union, Palakode, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri-636 808. 3.The President, P.Chettihalli Panchayat, Palakode Taluk & Union, Dharmapuri District. 4.K.Marriappan .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records, first respondent in Na.Ka.No.3741/09/A2, dated 9.12.2009, and to quash the same and consequently, permit the petitioner to sign the cheques along with the third respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Karunakaran For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan Government Advocate (R1 to R3) O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
2. The petitioner has stated that she is the vice president of P.Chettihalli Panchayat, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District. As such, she has been carrying on her duties to the best of her abilities, without any blemish. While so, the third respondent, the President of Chettihalli Panchayat, had issued a notice to all the members of the Panchayat to attend the meeting to be held, on 14.11.2009, to discuss about the subject mentioned in the notice. In the meantime, the petitioner had sent a notice to the second respondent stating that one Muthuraj, who is a Panchayat Assistant, has been committing certain malpractices and therefore, action should be taken against the said Muthuraj, as per law.
3. The petitioner has further stated that the third respondent had issued a notice to her stating that she should attend the enquiry to be held, on 28.11.2009, before the Assistant Director, Village Panchayat. The enquiry had been postponed to 30.11.2009. On 30.11.2009, the petitioner had appeared in person and submitted an explanation. However, the first respondent had issued the impugned order, dated 9.12.2009, stating that the petitioner was not cooperating with the administration of the Panchayat. Hence, the cheque signing authority of the petitioner was being transferred to the fourth respondent, on the basis of the resolution passed by the third respondent, dated 14.11.2009. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent denying the averments and allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It has been stated that the petitioner had failed to discharge her duties in a fair and proper manner. She did not cooperate in signing the cheques drawn by the third respondent, the President of Chettihalli Panchayat. Therefore, it had become difficult for the third respondent to carry on the day to day administration of the Panchayat, in fulfilling the basic needs of the people of the panchayat.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent is arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. He had also submitted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 9.12.2009, merely relying on the resolution passed by the third respondent, on 14.11.2009, without applying his mind. The first respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 9.12.2009, without issuing a show cause notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, contrary to section 205(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. He had also submitted that the first respondent had issued the impugned order contrary to Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
1)Pugazhendran V. B.G.Balu (2005(1) CTC 545);
2)S.Thangaraj V. The District Collector-cum-Inspector of Village Panchayats, Salem District and Others (CDJ 2009 MHC 3919)
3)M.Ganapathy V. The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat, Dharmapuri District and others (2009 Writ L.R. 700)
7. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 had submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent could be set aside and the District Collector, Dharmapuri District, the first respondent herein could be directed to pass appropriate orders, with regard to the transferring of the cheque signing authority of the petitioner, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, within a specified period.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the decisions cited supra, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 9.12.2009, is set aside. The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders based on the resolution of the third respondent, dated 14.11.2009, with regard to the transferring of the cheque signing authority of the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index:Yes/No 24-02-2010
Internet:Yes/No
csh
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
csh
To
1.The District Collector,
Collector Office,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
2.The Block Development Officer (V.P),
Palakode Taluk & Union,
Palakode, Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri-636 808.
3.The President,
P.Chettihalli Panchayat,
Palakode Taluk & Union,
Dharmapuri District.
Writ Petition No.26486 of 2009
and M.P.No.1 of 2009
24-02-2010