IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.1.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.58 of 2010 K.Senniyappan .. Petitioner vs. The District Collector Villuppuram District Villupuram .. Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent herein in R.C.No.A2/2415/2008/AD-Pts, dated 22.12.2009, and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the respondent herein to initiate necessary proceedings at the earliest, on the basis of our representation regarding the no confidence motion passed no 20.11.2009. For petitioner : Mr.G.Karthikeyan For respondent : Mr.R.Murali Government Advocate O R D E R Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the respondent, dated 22.12.2009, and to consequently direct the respondent to initiate necessary action on the representation of the petitioner, dated 20.11.2009. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Malaikottalam Village Panchayat consists of 9 members. Out of the 9 members of the Panchayat, one Periyasamy had left India during the year, 2007, and therefore, he had been disqualified. His post continues to be vacant till date. While so, a resolution had been passed and signed by 5 members of the panchayat, requesting the respondent to take appropriate action against the President of the Panchayat, with regard to certain corrupt practices. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The District Collector, the respondent herein, had issued proceedings, dated 22.12.2009, stating that, for initiating action, under Section 205(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, a representation should have been signed by atleast 6 members, constituting 2/3rd of the total number of members. Since only 5 ward members had signed the representation, dated 20.11.2009, the District Collector had refused to consider the same and to pass appropriate orders thereon. However, he had stated that a proper enquiry would be conducted to enquire into the charges levelled against the Panchayat President. He had also stated that, on examining the enquiry report, necessary action would be pursued against the persons concerned. 5. In view of the averments made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not been in a position to show that there were only 8 qualified ward members in the Malaikottalam Village Panchayat. No record had been filed before this Court to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that one of the 9 ward members had been disqualified. Further, the respondent by his impugned proceedings, dated 22.12.2009, has made it clear that appropriate action would be taken against the persons concerned, based on the enquiry report. It is also seen that, Govindaraj, the President of the Panchayat, has not been added as a party to the writ petition. 6. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the respondent is expected to take appropriate action against the persons concerned, as stated in the proceedings of the respondent, dated 22.12.2009, as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar lan To The District Collector, Villuppuram District, Villupuram. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.2375. 1 cc To Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR.2190. Writ Petition No.58 of 2010 PA(CO) RVL 01.02.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/