IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 21.4.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.9378 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 J.A.Karunanithi, President, Anakkavur Village Panchayat, Anakkavur Post-604 601, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District Collectorate, Thiruvannamalai Town. 2.The Additional Director, Rural Development and Village Panchayats, "Panagal Building", Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. 3.Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats), Anakkavur Panchayat Union, Panchayat Union Office, Anakkavur Post 604 401, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents comprised in the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.A2/1217/2011 dated 1.4.2001 and issued against the petitioner as the President of Anakkavur Panchayat, Anakkavur Panchayat Union, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District and quash the said order. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramana Reddy For Respondents : Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, Government Advocate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents comprised in the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.A2/1217/2011 dated 1.4.2001 and issued against the petitioner as the President of Anakkavur Panchayat, Anakkavur Panchayat Union, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District and quash the said order. 2. Petitioner in this case is an elected representative and the President of the Village Panchayat. In the course of performance of his duties, it was brought to the attention of the first respondent, the Inspector of Panchayats, that the petitioner is acting detrimental to the interest of the panahcyat. Three charges were levelled against the petitioner by issuance of a show-cause notice on 19.3.2011. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.3.2011. The impugned order was passed on 1.4.2011 withdrawing the cheque signing power from the petitioner and handing it over to the Block Development Officer, the third respondent until further orders. This order has been passed by the first respondent in exercise of power under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, which reads as follows:- "203. Emergency powers of Collector and Inspector:- Subject to such control as may be prescribed, the Inspector or the Collector may, in cases of emergency, direct or provide for the execution of any work, or the doing of any act which a Panchayat or Executive Authority or Commissioner or Secretary is empowered to execute or do and the immediate execution or doing of which is in his opinion necessary for the safety of the public and may direct that the expense of executing such work or doing such act shall be paid by the person having the custody of the Village Panchayat Fund or the Panchayat Union (General) Fund or the District Panchayat (General) Fund in priority to any other charges against such Fund except charges for the service of authorized loans." 3. Petitioner challenges the impugned order stating the bona fide of the petitioner in withdrawing the money for utilisation was due to administrative exigency and in order to save money to the panchayat. He justifies his action on facts, which this Court is not inclined to go into as the issue has been considered by the first respondent on merits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The further contention of the petitioner is that in exercise of power under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the first respondent ought not to have pass the order as the said power can be invoked by the first respondent only in cases of emergency or to direct the execution of any work which is necessary for the safety of public. This power should not have been used for withdrawing the cheque signing power from the elected President of the Village Panchayat. 5. Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents points out that such power exercised by the first respondent is justified and he relies upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of P.Suganthi – vs. - The District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats, Thoothukudi District reported in 2011(2) CTC 381 wherein the Division Bench held in para 11 as follows:- "11. When the proceedings is initiated as against the President of village related to financial misdeeds, we are of the view that the transferring the cheque signing power from the Village President to Block Development Officer, the Second Respondent is definitely a case of emergency fitting within the provisions of Section 203 of the Act. If the Appellant is allowed to continue to sign the cheques, it would amount to endorse the alleged irregularities committed by the Appellant. Moreover, the transferring of cheque signing power is only an interim arrangement, till the completion of the proceedings initiated as against the Appellant under Section 205 of the Act." 6. In this case also, there is a charge against the petitioner that he has acted improperly while dealing with the funds of the panchayat in discharge of his function and a show-cause notice was issued and the impugned order has been passed. Therefore, the Division Bench decision as above covers the facts of the present case as well. 7. Further, on going through the provisions of Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, it is apparent that the Collector, the Inspector of Panchayats has the power to direct or provide for the execution of any work or the doing of any act which a Panchayat or Executive Authority or Commissioner, etc., is empowered to execute or do and in exercise of such function and the Collector may direct that the expenses of executing such work or doing such act shall be paid by the person having the custody of the Village Panchayat Fund or the Panchayat Union (General) Fund etc. This provision presupposes the exercise of such power in cases of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ emergency under any contingency at the discretion of the Inspector of Panchayats. This power, however, will have to be exercised for good reasons. 8. In the present case, in view of the allegations against the President of the Village Panchayat, supported by reasons, the cheque signing power alone has been taken away as an interim measure. 9. The exercise of such power is well within the power of the Inspector of Panchayats under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. This Court finds no infirmity in the power exercised by the Collector, the Inspector of Panchayats, in accordance with Section 203 of the Act. The challenge to the said order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, therefore, fails. 10. As pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, insofar as the factual aspect of this case is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to file a Revision under Section 219 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, before the Government and ventilate his grievance as per the said provision. 11. The Writ Petition stands dismissed giving liberty as above. No costs. Consequently, the interim order granted in M.P.No.1 of 2011 is vacated and the miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District Collectorate, Thiruvannamalai Town. 2.The Additional Director, Rural Development and Village Panchayats, "Panagal Building", Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats), Anakkavur Panchayat Union, Panchayat Union Office, Anakkavur Post 604 401, Thiruvannamalai District. 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.28389 1 cc to Mr.V.Ramana Reddy, Advocate, Sr.No.27826 Order in W.P.No.9378 of 2011 RSY {CO} TP/2.5.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/