1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:08.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P(MD)No.10220 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 N.Palaniandi :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Inspector of Panchayats-cum-District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy. 2.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Thottiyam, Trichy District. 3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Thottiyam, Trichy Distirct. 4.The Tahsildar, Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District. :Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A9/1795/2010, dated 30.06.2010 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to exercise all powers as the president of the Panchayat. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan For R-1 R-3 and R-4: Mr.M.Govindan, Spl. Government Pleader For R-2 : Mr.D.Muruganandam, Addl. Govt. Pleader ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A9/1795/2010, dated 30.06.2010 and to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to exercise all powers as the president of the Panchayat. 2.Heard Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Mr.D.Muruganandham, learned Additional Government Pleader for R-2. 3.By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 4.The petitioner is a President of Tholurpatti Panchayat and is aggrieved by an order passed by the first respondent Inspector of Panchayat/District Collector cancelling the check signing power by the impugned proceedings. 5.The brief facts which are relevant for the case, are as follows: On 30.06.2010, the first respondent issued show cause notice-cum-charge memo under Section 205 of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994(in short "the Act") listing out various irregularities and called upon the petitioner to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 submit his explanation within fifteen days. On the same day, referring to the proceedings initiated under Section 205 of the Act, the authority issued the impugned proceedings inter alia contending that various irregularities have been committed by the petitioner in the conduct of the affairs of the Panchayat and in exercise of his emergency power under Section 203 of the Act, he is withdrawing the cheque signing power from the President and vice President and directed that the same should be exercised by the Block Development Officer till the proceedings initiated under Section 205 of the Act(Wrongly stated as Section 203 of the Act) is completed. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition has been filed. 6.The contentions of the petitioner are as follows: (i)Separate order should be passed in the proceedings initiated under Section 203 of the Act. (ii)Merely on the basis of the report of the Assistant Director of Panchayat, the District Collector has mechanically passed the order under Section 203 of the Act. That is not in consonance with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pugazhendran vs. B.G.Balu reported in 2005 (1) CTC 545. He relied upon Paragraph No.29 of the said judgment to say that the District Collector should independently apply the mind. The decision reads as follows: 29. In the present case a perusal of the order of the District Collector, Vellore (Inspector of Panchayats, Vellore), dated 07.11.2002 cancelling the power of the Vice President to sign the panchayat's cheques as joint signatory, shows that the District Collector has merely acted on the recommendation of the Block Development Officer, Katpadi Panchayat Union, and he has not applied his mind independently to the facts of the case, and he has not come to any independent conclusion that the refusal to sign cheques by the Vice President was mala fide or for ulterior motives. The District Collector, Vellore, without issuing notice to the petitioner, appears to have mechanically accepted the report of the Block Development Officer, Katpadi, Panchayat Union, which in our opinion was not proper. 7.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relied upon Paragraph No.11 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in P.Suganthi vs. the District Collector and another reported in 2011 2 CTC 381 and the earlier decision of this Court in J.A.Karunanithi vs. District Collector reported in (2011) 5 MLJ 766 and stated that pursuant to Section 205 proceedings, the cheque signing power can be withdrawn invoking Section 203 of the Act. 8.Paragraph No.11 of the decision in P.Suganthi vs. the District Collector and another reported in 2011 2 CTC 381 reads 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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." 9.The contention of the petitioner is not tenable for the following reasons: (i)Admittedly on 30.06.2010, the proceedings under Section 205 of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, was initiated and the petitioner was called upon to show cause. On the same day, the impugned proceedings under Section 203 of the Act has been passed. The proceeding under Section 205 of the Act has been initiated after going through all the materials submitted to the authority and therefore Section 203 order was also passed. Therefore, application of mind by the District Collector is evident in the proceedings initiated under Section 205 of the Act, which is also based on the report of the Assistant Director. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the District Collector issued the impugned proceedings under Section 203 of the Act without application of mind cannot be sustained. The entire material was before the Inspector of Panchayat. (ii)There is no need to issue separate show-cause notice under Section 203 of the Act as the initiation of proceedings under 205 of the Act itself is a good ground to invoke the emergency power and withdraw the check signing power from the President or any other persons concerned. This view has been emphasized by the Division Bench of this Court in P.Suganthi vs. the District Collector and another reported in 2011 2 CTC 381 in Paragraph No.11 referred to above. In that case also, Proceedings under Section 205 of the Act was initiated on 31.05.2010 and the Proceedings under Section 203 of the Act order was issued subsequently on 13.08.2010. The Court take into account the notice issued under Section 205 of the Act to sustain the order issued for withdrawing the cheque signing power under Section 203 of the Act. Even in the case in J.A.Karunanithi v. District Collector, reported in (2011) 5 MLJ 766 (cited supra), I have followed the decision of the Division Bench in P.Suganthi v. District Collector-cum Inspector of Panchayats reported in 2011 (2) CTC 381, wherein in Paragraph No.7, the scope of power under Section 203 of the Act, has been discussed. 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 Panchyats 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 of 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 emergency under any contingency at the discretion of the Inspector of Panchayats. This power, however, will have to be exercised for good reasons. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 10.The decision of the learned single judge in K.Pannaiselvam v. The District Collector & Others reported in CDJ 2008 MHC 5818 relied upon by the petitioner was rendered prior the Division Bench judgment and therefore, the said decision will be of no assistance to the petitioner's plea. The Division Bench decision reported in 2005 (1) CTC 545 does not apply to the facts of the present case. 11.In view of the above, challenge to the impugned order fails. One other reason for this Court, not to entertain the Writ Petition, is the inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. The impugned proceedings was issued on 30.06.2010 and after one year and two months, it is challenged. On this ground also, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12.Accordingly, finding no merits the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Inspector of Panchayats-cum-District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy. 2.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Thottiyam, Trichy District. 3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Thottiyam, Trichy Distirct. 4.The Tahsildar, Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District. +1CC to Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, Advocate. SR.No.31017. Pm RP/26.09.2011/4P/6C. W.P.(MD)No.10220 of 2011 08.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/