IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 17.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.2933 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 and 2 of 2010 K.M.Jambu ...... Petitioner -Vs- The District Collector (Inspector of Panchayats) Coimbatore District Coimbatore ...... Respondent Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus of like nature to call for the records pertaining to Notice bearing Roc.No.1382/2008/A2 dated 06.02.2010 of the respondent herein and quash the same and further direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service as President of Kattampatti village Panchayat and proceed thereafter in accordance with G.O.(D) No.23 Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Suthakar For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali Government Advocate. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that he was elected as a President of Katampatti Village Panchayat, in the Panchayat elections conducted in the year, 2006. Thereafter, he has been functioning as the President of the said Panchayat, for about eight years. He has been carrying on his duties, as the President of the Katampatti village Panchayat, to the satisfaction of all concerned, as per the provisions of law. Whileso, one Gopalakrishnan, who was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ functioning as a ward member of Katampatti Village Panchayat, in between the years 1996-2001, had made a complaint to the District Collector, Coimbatore, against the petitioner, with an ulterior motive, stating that the petitioner was not performing his duties, as the President of Katampatti village Panchayat. The respondent, without going into the merits of the complaint, had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, on 21.05.2008, under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994, seeking for the explanation from the petitioner, with regard to the allegations made against him, in the complaint submitted by Gopalakrishnan. The charges levelled against the petitioner in the said show cause notice, issued by the respondent are as follows: "a)that I have taken a sum of Rs.47,000/- from the savings bank A/c.No.480 from Varadayampalayam Co- operative Bank without getting the signature of the Vice President. b)Without the resolution of the Village Panchyat nor the permission of the Town Planning authorities I granted No objection Certificate for registering the sale deeds c)that I failed to collect the cost of the land fixed for open space reservation from the persons who are developing the property d)that I have not maintained the public lavaratories, public dustbin properly. e)that without constructing the group houses I claimed money as though group houses are constructed." 3. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed a Writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.13293 of 2008, challenging the show cause notice, dated 21.05.2008, issued by the respondent, on the ground that the procedures contemplated, under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994, was not properly followed by the respondent, prior to the issuance of the said show cause notice. However, the said Writ Petition has been dismissed by this Court, by its order, dated 18.11.2008, granting two weeks time to the petitioner, to submit his explanation to the show cause notice, dated, 21.05.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Aggrieved by the said order of this Court, dated 18.11.2008, a Writ Appeal had been filed before this Court, in W. A. No.1515 of 2008. In the mean time, the petitioner had been removed from the post of President of Katampatti Village Panchayat, vide order, dated 09.03.2009, issued by the respondent. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before this Court, in W.P.No.5679 of 2009. The same was dismissed, on 11.09.2009, against which the petitioner had filed a Writ Appeal before this Court, in W.A.No.1429 of 2009. By its order, dated, 05.10.2009, the Division Bench of this Court had observed as follows: "Although Mr.V.Suthakar, learned counsel has made various submissions, he states that the appellant will handover charge of his post to the vice President of the Village Panchayat under Section 47 of the Act and will make a representation to the state Government invoking its power under Section 205(12). Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General states that in the event any such representation is made, it is for the Government to consider that representation. He, however, assures that in the event such a representation is considered, the Government will decide it on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made by the learned single Judge on the six charges, which have been held to be established by the Collector. Mr.V.Suthakar, learned counsel states that the representation will be made within two weeks. We expect the Government to look into the representation expeditiously on receiving the same. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed. No costs." 5.Thereafter, the petitioner had made a representation, to the Tamil Nadu State Government, under Section 205(12) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The State Government had passed an order, on 20.01.2010, in G.O.(D)No.23, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, setting aside the order of the respondent, removing the petitioner from the post of President. As such, the petitioner is entitled to function as the President of Katampatti Village Panchayat, with all his powers, as contemplated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under the Tamilnadu Panchayats Act, 1994. However, the respondent had issued the impugned notice ,dated, 06.02.2010, asking the petitioner to appear for an enquiry, on 17.02.2010. In the said notice, it has been shown that the petitioner is a person, who has been removed from the post of President of the Panchayat. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, once the order of removal ,dated, 09.03.2009, had been set aside by the State Government, by its order, in G.O. (D)No.23, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated, 20.01.2010, without any reservations, the petitioner is entitled to function as a full fledged President of the Katampatti Village Panchayat, with all the powers vested in him, as per the provisions of the Tamilnadu Panchyats Act, 1994. However, the respondent had not permitted the petitioner to function as the President of the Katampatti Village Panchayat, before directing him to appear for an enquiry, on 17.02.2010.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that, unless the petitioner is permitted to function as the President of the said Panchayat, he will be handicapped by the fact that he would not have access to the necessary documents to put forth his case, before the respondent, in the enquiry, which is scheduled to be held on 17.02.2010 . The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that, the respondent has no valid jurisdiction to prevent the petitioner from functioning, as the President of Katampatti Village Panchayat ,inspite of the order passed by the State Government, on 20.01.2010, setting aside the order of the respondent, dated, 09.03.2009, removing the petitioner from the post of President of the Katampatti Village Panchayat. 7.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that, in view of the order passed by the State Government, in G.O.(D)No.23, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated, 20.01.2010, the petitioner ought to have been permitted to function as President of the said Panchayat. It is not open to the respondents, to prevent the petitioner, from functioning as the Panchayat, without passing any specific order, preventing him from functioning as such. 8.At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, had pointed out that, the enquiry pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the respondent, on 06.02.2010, has to be held at 6.00 P.M.,on 17.02.2010 and that it would be open to the petitioner to appear before the respondent and to participate in the said enquiry and to submit his explanation. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had insisted that the petitioner can participate in the enquiry, only if his power, as the President of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Panchayat, is restored, to enable him to put forth his case before the respondent, effectively. 9. In view of the said submissions, it is made clear that the respondents, should permit the petitioner to function, as the President of Panchayat, as per the order passed by the State Government, in G.O.(D)No.23, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated, 20.01.2010, without curtailing his powers, as contemplated in the Tamilnadu Panchayats Act, 1994. If the petitioner was not in a position to participate in the enquiry, which is scheduled to be held on 17.02.2010, the respondents shall fix any other convenient date for conducting the enquiry, and pass appropriate orders thereon, after obtaining the explanation, to be submitted by the petitioner. This Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar arr To The District Collector (Inspector of Panchayats) Coimbatore District Coimbatore +1cc to Mr.V.Suthakar,Advocate Sr 10485 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 10967 PUR(CO) km/25.2. Writ Petition No.2933 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/