IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:26.11.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.No.20120 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 S.P.Kandasamy .. Petitioner Versus 1. The District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore. 2. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat Coimbatore 3. The Executive Officer Samathur Town Panchayat Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore. 4. Mrs. S. Mangayarkarasi 5. Mr. K. Thangavelu 6. Mr. P. Karuppusamy .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to issue suitable orders forbearing the respondents 4 to 6 from in any manner interfering with the functioning of the Samathur Town Panchayat consequent to their resignation from the post of Chairman and Councillors and consequently direct the first and second respondents to recommend for conducting the election for Ward Nos.2,3 & 9 at the earliest. For petitioner : Mr.M.Hidayathulla Khan For R1 and R2 : Mr. V.Arun Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mrs. S.Anitha For R4 to R6 : Mrs. R.T.Shymala ORDER By consent of counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner would contend that he was unanimously selected and functioning as Vice-chairman of the Samathur Village Panchayat on the death of incumbent Vice-Chairman and attending to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the welfare of the public at large. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent has not properly implemented the free Gas Distribution scheme announced by the Government of Tamil Nadu in certain wards and she has also not attended to the grievances expressed by the public in this regard. The fourth respondent also not attended the office of the Panchayat regularly and as Vice- chairman, the petitioner took the burden of attending to all the duties and responsibilities relating to the office of the Village Panchayat. While so, on 15.08.2010, prior to flag hoisting function, group of aggrieved women folk approached the fourth respondent complaining non-distribution of free gas supply to them, but it was not properly attended to by the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the gathering of the general public and the complaint given by them, the fourth respondent refused to hoist the national flag and left the office, with the result, the national flag was hoisted by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. While the facts are so, the respondents 4 to 6 have foisted a false case against the petitioner as if he prevented the fourth respondent from hoisting the national flag. Simultaneously, the fourth respondent, along with the fifth and sixth respondents have tendered their resignation to the third respondent and it was also accepted as contemplated under Section 31 of the District Municipalities Act. While so, even after resigning their posts and inspite of the bar to revoke the resignation, the respondents 2 and 3 have permitted the respondents 4 to 6 to withdraw the resignations without any authority. Thereafter, the fourth respondent convened a council meeting on 03.09.2010 without any authority after resigning her post. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is an outsider the moment after she resigned the post and she has no legal right to convene any meeting of the panchayat. The petitioner has also sent a telegram to the respondents 1 and 2 on 25.08.2010 to restrain the respondents 4 to 6 from convening or attending the panchayat council meetings, followed by a representation dated 26.08.2010, but till date, no action was taken, hence, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that around 150 people assembled on 15.08.2010 at the time of flag hoisting and they forced the fourth respondent to sign in the list of beneficiaries intended for supply of free gas service. They also insisted the fourth respondent that the flag should be hoisted only after signing the list. Therefore, the third respondent summoned the police personnel and thereafter the situation came to a control and the fourth respondent also hoisted the national flag. It is also true that on that day, unable to digest the humiliation meted out to her, the fourth respondent tendered her resignation along with the respondents 5 and 6, but the resignation letter was not addressed to any authority and also the details of the posts held by them was not mentioned. In one and the same resignation letter, the fourth to sixth respondents have signed. Subsequently, the respondents 4 to 6 have withdrawn the improperly signed resignation letter on 16.08.2010 and therefore, it cannot be said that the fourth to sixth respondents have resigned their respective post. As per Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, the President should submit the resignation to the Executive Authority and the Ward Members should submit the resignation letter to the Chairman and thereafter it will be placed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before the council by the Executive Authority for a decision. In the absence of fulfilment of the above requirements, it cannot be said that the respondents 4 to 6 have resigned from their posts and consequently, the relief sought for by the petitioner to restrain them from interfering with the administration of the Panchayat does not arise. 4. The fourth respondent had filed a separate counter affidavit contending that the petitioner was enemical towards her. In fact, when the petitioner was working as a Record Clerk in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tharapuram, a police complaint was lodged against him for tampering of records, which resulted in registration of a case and he was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner was also kept under suspension. Apparently, this had led to the petitioner to misuse his position as Vice-President of the Panchayat and to wreck vengeance against the fourth respondent. On 15.08.2010, at the instigation of the petitioner, more than 300 villagers prevented the fourth respondent from hoisting the national flag. The Villagers also shouted slogans against the fourth respondent and used filthy language against her. The fourth respondent also given a complaint against the petitioner and based on the same, a case in Crime No. 324 of 2010 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 294 (b) and 506 (ii) of IPC. Under those circumstance, out of anger, the fourth respondent along with the respondents 5 and 6 have tendered their resignation, but the resignation was never accepted by the first respondent. Subsequently, the fourth respondent along with the fifth and sixth respondents continued to function as the President and Councillors of the Panchayat. The resignation tendered was not in accordance with Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act or it was never accepted by the first respondent, besides it was withdrawn on 16.08.2010 and therefore, there is no embargo for the fourth respondent to continue as the President of the Panchayat. The writ petition was filed to harass the respondents 4 to 6 and therefore the writ petition has to be dismissed. 5. Heard the counsel for both sides. The petitioner would contend that the respondents 4 to 6 have tendered their resignation of their posts and therefore, as per Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, it is deemed that they have resigned their post and it will not confer them any right to continue in the post as President and Councillors of the Panchayat respectively. By virtue of their resignation, the post of President of the Panchayat had became vacant and therefore, election has to be conducted for filling up the post of President. 6. In this context, it is necessary to look into the resignation letters tendered by the respondents 4 to 6 on 15.08.2010, copies of the same were made available before this Court. The resignation letter was merely signed by the respondent 4 to 6, but it was not addressed to any one and the person to whom the resignation letter was tendered was left blank. Moreover, the respondents 4 to 6 have signed in a single letter seeking to resign their respective post of President and Councillors of the Panchayat and no individual resignation letter was submitted. The posts which the respondents 4 to 6 hold was also not mentioned therein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the resignation letter tendered by the respondents 4 to 6 was in accordance with Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 reads as follows:- "31. Power of Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Councillor to resign:- Any councillor or vice- chairman may resign his office by giving notice to the Chairman; the chairman may resign his office by giving notice to the Commissioner. Such resignation shall take effect in the case of a councillor or vice-chairman from the date on which it is received by the chairman and in the case of a chairman from the date on which it is received by the Commissioner." 8. Section 31 of the Act would make the position very clear that the Councillors have to tender their resignation to the Chairman and Chairman has to tender the resignation addressed to the Commissioner and that the resignation will take effect from the date on which the letter is tendered. In this background, if we analyse the alleged resignation letter, it could be seen that the resignation letter dated 15.8.2010 was addressed by the Chairman/President of the Village Panchayat namely Mangayarkarasi, the fourth respondent herein and the addressee column was left blank. The said letter was signed by the 4th respondent, 5th respondent and 6th respondent jointly. Therefore, it is very clear that the resignation letter has not been addressed to anyone. In other words, the resignation letter is not in accordance with Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. As per Section 31 of the Act, insofar as ward members are concerned, the resignation letter should be addressed to the chairman and this requirement is also not fulfilled in this case. Moreover, as per the counter affidavit of the respondents 3 and 4, the resignation letter dated 15.08.2010 was withdrawn by the respective respondents 4 to 6 on the next day namely 16.08.2010. It is also evident that subsequently, the fourth respondent also convened meeting as President of the Panchayat and the resolutions passed in the said meeting were also given effect to, as admitted by the petitioner himself. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents 4 to 6 have resigned from the post of President and Councillors of the Panchayat respectively and consequently, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2010 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ga/rsh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore. 2. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat Coimbatore 3. The Executive Officer Samathur Town Panchayat Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore. 1 cc To Mr.M.Hidayathulla Khan, Advocate, SR.85294 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.84932 1 cc To Mr.S.Anitha, Advocate, SR.84749 1 cc To Mrs. R.T.Shymala, Advocate, SR.84594 W.P.No.20120 of 2010 sv(co) pmk.9.3.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/