IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01/02/2005
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN
W.A.No.1845 of 2004
The President
No.62, Ammanambakkam Panchayat
Thirukazhukundram Union
Kancheepuram District .. Appellant
-Vs-
1. D.Vedachalam
2. The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram
3. The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Thirukazhukundram Branch
Kancheepuram District .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order of the learned single Judge dated 5.3.2004 made in W.P.No.1501 5 of
2003.
!For Appellant :: Mr.V.Subbarayan
^For Respondents :: Mr.V.Raghupathy
Government Pleader R2
:JUDGMENT
D.MURUGESAN, J.
The first respondent (writ petitioner) is the Vice President of
Ammanambakkam Panchayat, Kancheepuram District. In terms of Section 188(3) of
the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, he is entitled to sign the cheque along
with the President of the Panchayat. By a resolution dated 10.4.2003, the
Panchayat resolved to permit a ward member to sign the cheque on behalf of the
Vice President along with the President. The said resolution was passed on
the ground that the first respondent refused to sign the cheques presented by
the appellant. On the allegation that the first respondent refused to sign
the cheques only because the amount was exorbitant and that the withdrawal was
a scandal and he cannot be deprived of his right to sign the cheque, he filed
the writ petition for a mandamus forbearing the Branch Manager, State Bank of
India, Tirukazhukundram Branch from disbursing any amount standing in the name
of the Ammanambakkam Panchayat in A/c Nos.VP-10 ,11,40,41 & 44 without the
signature of the President and the Vice President. The writ petition was
allowed and the direction was issued as prayed for, on the ground that in the
event the Vice President refuses to sign, the only course open to the
Inspector of Panchayats is either to take action under Section 206 or in the
alternative to exercise the emergency powers vested in him under Section 203
of the Act and that the right to sign the cheque cannot be deprived.
Challenging the said order, the President of the Ammanambakkam Panchayat has
filed the present writ appeal.
2. The scope of Section 188(3) of the Act came up for consideration
before a Division Bench in W.A.No.1799 of 2004. By an order dated 28 .1.2005,
the Division Bench has held that in the event the Vice President refuses to
sign, resorting to action under Section 206 of the Act may require the
compliance of procedures mentioned in sub-section (2) to (13) of Section 205,
which are very elaborate and cumbersome. If such procedure alone is followed,
for signing each and every cheque, it would be impracticable to resort to the
said procedure. The Division Bench has also held that in terms of Section
188(3), though a member is authorized to sign the cheque in the place of the
Vice President, the Inspector of Panchayats (District Collector), who is
competent to grant prior approval should apply his mind and decide by a
written order giving reason as to whether the Vice President (or the President
as the case may be) is refusing to sign the cheque for ulterior motive or for
genuine reasons in the interest of the village panchayat. The Division Bench
has therefore held that before the Inspector of Panchayats decides the
question, he should give an opportunity to the Vice President (or President as
the case may be).
3. In our considered view, the writ petition itself is premature.
The resolution of the Panchayat is yet to be considered by the Inspector of
Panchayats (District Collector), Kancheepuram for his prior approval. Even
before such consideration is made, the first respondent has approached this
Court seeking for a direction forbearing the Branch Manager, State Bank of
India, Tirukazhukundram Branch from disbursing any amount standing in the name
of the Ammanambakkam Panchayat in A/c Nos.VP-10, 11, 40, 41 & 44 without the
signature of the President and the Vice President. As the District Collector
is yet to decide, we are of the considered view that the writ petition itself
is liable to be dismissed, as the relief sought for cannot be granted at this
stage. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is
set aside. In view of the order of the Division Bench dated 28.1.2005 made in
W.A.No.1799 of 2004, the District Collector of Kancheepuram is directed to
consider the resolution of the Panchayat and pass appropriate orders after
giving an opportunity of hearing ( which need not be a personal hearing) to
the Vice President and President of the Panchayat, and others concerned, and
after recording his reasons as to whether in his opinion, the Vice President
(or President, as the case may be) is refusing to sign the cheque for ulterior
motive, or for genuine reasons in the interest of the village panchayat. It
will be the duty of the Inspector of Panchayats, to decide this matter
objectively and impartially without being influenced by any extraneous
pressures or considerations. If the refusal to sign the cheque is for good
and genuine reasons in the interest of the Village Panchayat, the Inspector
should refuse approval, but if it is for extraneous considerations or is mala
fide he should grant it. This should be done very expeditiously by the
District Collector, Kancheepuram.
4. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
W.A.M.P.No.3450 of 2004 is closed.
Index: yes
Internet: yes
ss
To
1. The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram