1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.08.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.(MD)No.6795 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 and W.P.(MD)No.6843 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2011 and W.P.(MD)No.6686 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.6795 of 2011: M.Seetha Lakshmi ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files of the second respondent pertaining to the gazette notification bearing No.166 dated 06.06.2011 with regard to the proceeding in Na.Ka.UE1/3257/2010 at Sl.No.VI(2)/330(B-5)/2011 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as a President. For Petitioner ...Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents ...Mr.M.Govindan, Special Govt. Pleader W.P.(MD)No.6843 of 2011: K.Govindan ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files of the second respondent pertaining to the gazette notification bearing No.166 dated 06.06.2011 with regard to the proceeding in Na.Ka.UE1/3120/2010 at Sl.No.VI(2)/330(B-3)/2011 and to quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned and consequently, direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as a President. For Petitioner ...Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents ...Mr.M.Govindan, Special Govt. Pleader W.P.(MD)No.6686 of 2011: V.Ganesa Moorthi ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, (Local Administration), Secretariat at Chennai, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files of the second respondent pertaining to the gazette notification bearing No.166 dated 06.06.2011 with regard to the proceeding in Na.Ka.UE1/3256/2010 at Sl.No.VI(2)/330(B-4)/2011 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as a President. For Petitioner ...Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents ...Mr.M.Govindan, Special Govt. Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 COMMON ORDER W.P(MD)No.6795 of 2011 has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the files of the second respondent pertaining to the gazette notification bearing No.166 dated 06.06.2011 with regard to the proceeding in Na.Ka.UE1/3257/2010 at Sl.No.VI(2)/330(B-5)/ 2011 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as a President. 2. W.P(MD)No.6843 of 2011 has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the files of the second respondent pertaining to the gazette notification bearing No.166 dated 06.06.2011 with regard to the proceeding in Na.Ka.UE1/3120/2010 at Sl.No.VI (2)/330(B-3)/2011 and to quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned and consequently, direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as a President. 3. W.P(MD)No.6686 of 2011 has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the files of the second respondent pertaining to the gazette notification bearing No.166 dated 06.06.2011 with regard to the proceeding in Na.Ka.UE1/3256/2010 at Sl.No.VI (2)/330(B-4)/2011 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as a President. 4. The writ petitions have been filed by the President of the respective Panchayats challenging the final order passed by the Inspector of Panchayats/District Collector removing them from the post of President of Panchayat in accordance with Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. 5. The brief facts are as follows: All the three writ petitioners were visited with the show cause notices as follows: Sl. No. W.P(MD)Nos. Date of Show Cause Notices 1. 6795 of 2011 22.12.2010 2. 6843 of 2011 22.12.2010 3. 6686 of 2011 22.10.2010 Each one of the petitioners submitted a reply to the show cause notices respectively and denied the allegations levelled against them. Thereafter, they were removed by the order of the Inspector of Panchayats dated 06.06.2011. 6. The writ petitions have been filed inter alia contending that the impugned order of removal of the President in each of the cases, is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to Section 205(2) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, which reads as follows: "Section 205. (2): If the explanation is received within the specified date and the Inspector considers that the explanation is satisfactory, he may drop further action with respect to the notice. If no explanation is received within https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 the specified date or if the explanation received is in his opinion not satisfactory, he shall forward to the Tahsildar of the taluk a copy of the notice referred to in sub-section (1) and the explanation of the president if received within the specified date with a proposal for the removal of the president for ascertaining the views of the village panchayat. (3) The Tahsildar shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the notice and the explanation, if any, and the proposal for the removal of the president, at the office of the village panchayat at a time appointed by the Tahsildar." 7. The specific case of the petitioner in each one of the case is that after submitting their explanation, the Inspector of Panchayats should forward a copy of the notice referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 205 of the Act and explanation if received within the specified date with proposal for removal of the President for ascertaining the view of the Members of the Panchayat. Thereafter, the Tahsildar shall convene a meeting of the Members of the Panchayat to consider the proposal for removal of the President. 8. According to the petitioners, the Inspector of Panchayats has not forwarded the notice and the reply of the petitioners to the Tahsildar so as to enable him to ascertain the view of the Members of the Village Panchayat and further, no meeting as envisaged under Section 205(3) of the Act was convened by the Tahsildar to obtain the views of the Members of the Village Panchayat. The said point has been raised by the petitioners in Ground Nos.(h), (h) and (VII) respectively. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for, for the above stated breach of law. 9. On notice, the District Collector has filed the counter affidavit along with the petition to vacate the stay. 10. On going through the counter affidavit, it is clear that the Inspector of Panchayats has failed to follow the procedure as envisaged under Section 205(2) and (3) of the Act before proceeding to remove the petitioners - Presidents of the respective Panchayats in terms of Section 205(11) of the Act. 11. The need to consider the views of the Members of the Panchayat has been emphasised by the Division Bench of this Court in The State of Tamil Nadu v. S.Ramasamy reported in 2011 (1) CWC 814. It fortifies the view taken by this Court in present case that the views of the Members have not been obtained and therefore, there is a statutory violation affecting the right of the petitioners. 12. In view of the glaring infirmity in not following the provisions of law, the order passed by the District Collector and his failure to follow the procedure as prescribed under the Act, is a good enough reason to set aside the orders under challenge and the petitioners need not be relegated to seek the alternative remedy as there is a clear infraction of law. 13. In view of the above finding, the impugned orders passed by the Inspector of Panchayats/District Collector in all the three writ petitions are set aside and the matters are remitted to the authority concerned to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 re-consider the issue if warranted as per law. 14. The Writ Petitions are allowed in the above terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. SD/- Assistant Registrar (T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 4.The Secretary to Government, (Local Administration), Secretariat at Chennai, Chennai. +1. CC to Mr.K.Jeganathan, Advocate, SR.No. 26620 +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 26579 rsb W.P.(MD)No.6795 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 and W.P.(MD)No.6843 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2011 and W.P.(MD)No.6686 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2011 05.08.2011 TR : 25.08.2011: 5p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/