1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.7358 of 2011 and Cont.P(MD)No.552 of 2011 and MP(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 A.Thiraviyarani ... Petitioner in both W.P. & Cont.P. vs. 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Pudukottai District. 2.The Tahsildar, Pudukottai Taluk, Pudukottai District. .. Respondents in WP. 3.B.Maheswari, District Collector, Pudukottai District. .. Respondent in both W.P.& Cont.Petition PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.7358 of 2011:Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for all the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent vide Na.Ka.2993/08/A3(Ura) dt.27.6.11 and the consequent Notification in Tamilnadu Govt. Gazette No.188 dated 28.6.2011. Prayer in Cont.P(MD)No.552 of 2011: Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order dated 03.08.2011 in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 in W.P.(MD)No.7358 of 2011. Prayer in MP.1/2011 in W.A.No.7358/2011: To stay all further proceedings of the orders passed by the 1st Respondent vide Na.Ka.2993/08/A3(Ura) dated 27.06.2011 and the consequent Notification in Tamilnadu Government Gazette No.188 dated 28.06.2011 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. For Petitioner : Ms.A.L.Gandhimathi For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, (In both W.P and Cont.P) Additional Government Pleader. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 COMMON ORDER The writ petition was filed challenging an order dated 27.06.2011 issued by the District Collector, Pudukkottai District in removing the petitioner in terms of Section 205 of the Tamil nadu Panchayats Act. The said removal has already been subsequently published in the Government Gazette on 28.06.2011 in Part II Section 2. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 2.The writ petition was admitted on 03.08.2011. Pending the writ petition, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench this Court in the State of Tamil Nadu Vs.S.Ramasamy reported in 2011 (1) CWC 814 for contending that the views of the members of the panchayat was brushed aside while passing the order. 3.In view of the prima facie case, this Court granted an interim stay. Aggrieved by the interim stay, the District Collector filed M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 for vacating the stay. In the meanwhile, the petitioner complaining that the order of stay passed by this Court was not given effect to, filed a contempt petition No.552 of 2011. 4.When the contempt petition came up on 19.09.2011, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondent. But however, when it came on 22.12.2011, this Court directed the writ petition to be listed along with the main writ petition for final disposal considering that the main writ petition will be covered by the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court. Accordingly, the main writ petition came to be posted today. 5.In the present case, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing the order under Section 205, the views of the members of the council was not taken into account. This issue has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Villupuram District and another Vs.Devi Parasuraman and others reported in 2009 (4) CTC 609. The Full Bench headed by S.J.Mukhopadhaya,J (as he then was) held in paragraph 17 which is as follows: "17.In the light of the discussions made above, we summarise our views as follows: i)An act of the Inspector under Section 205 is quasi-judicial in nature; ii)If the Inspector is satisfied with the explanation submitted by the President under Section 205, he is required to record his satisfaction for dropping the proceeding; and iii)If the Inspector differs with the views expressed by the Village Panchayat and decides to remove the President or to drop the proceeding against the President, he is not only required to record the reasons for differing with the views of the Village Panchayat, but https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 before taking any decision to remove the President, the Inspector is also required to provide further notice to the President intimating the reasons for difference and can issue notification only on consideration of cause, if any, shown by the President". 6.In the light of the same the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order stands quashed. In normal circumstances, if there is any procedural violation, the matter will be remitted to the same authority for final disposal. But in the present case, the tenure of office of the incumbent elected during 2006-2011 has come to an end and fresh elections have been held for the local bodies during 17 and 19 of October 2011 and new set of office bearers have assumed office, it will be futile exercise in remitting the matter and no removal could be done when the tenure is over. In the light of the above, no remittal order is passed. 7.In view of the writ petition itself being allowed, the question of maintaining the contempt will not arise and since no statutory notice has been issued so far, it is unnecessary to pursue contempt. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Pudukottai District. 2.The Tahsildar, Pudukottai Taluk, Pudukottai District. 3.B.Maheswari, District Collector, Pudukottai District. +1cc to Mr.AL.Ganthimathi, Advocate, Sr.No.45583 +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No. 45952 sms ssk/02.01.2012 /6c -3p/- Common Order made in W.P.(MD)No.7358 of 2011 and Cont.P(MD)No.552 of 2011 23.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/