Madras High Court
U.Vigneshwaran vs The District Collector on 16 October, 2024
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 01.08.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
WP(MD)No.26530 of 2022
and
WMP(MD)No.20715 of 2022
U.Vigneshwaran ...Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate, Trichy District, Trichy.
2.The Block Development Officer,
(Village Panchayat)
Andhanallurr Panchayat Union,
Trichy District.
3.The Assistant Director (Panchayats),
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department,
Collectorate, Trichirappalli.
4.The Assistant Director (Auditing),
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department,
Collectorate, Trichirappalli.
5.The Tahsildar,
Srirangam Taluk,
Trichy District. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to
the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in
Se.Mu.No.A9/480/2022/Vu.E (Voo) dated 15.11.2022 and quash the same
on the ground that the same is retrospective arbitrary, illegal with bias and
malafide attitude, without any legal basis and consequently directing the
respondents to restore the post of the President in the Malliyampathu
Panchayat, Anthanallurr Panchayat Union, Trichy District to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Murugesan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Sasikumar,
Addl., Government Pleader for R1 to R5
ORDER
The writ petitioner was elected as the President of Malliampath Panchayat which falls under Andhanallur Panchayat Union, Trichirappalli. One Kalaiselvan submitted complaint against the petitioner on 02.02.2022. The Assistant Director (Village Panchayats) submitted inspection report on 07.02.2022. An audit report adverse to the petitioner was also submitted. Under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the District Collector can take action for removal of panchayat president either on own motion or on the basis of the representation in writing signed by not less than 2/3rds of the sanctioned strength of the village panchayat containing a statement charges against the president and presented in person to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/13 District Collector by any two of the members. In this case, the requisite number was not there. However, the District Collector, Trichirappalli decided to take suo motu action and issued notice dated 06.05.2022 under Section 205 (1) of the Act calling for explanation from the petitioner.
2.The petitioner filed WP(MD)No.18069 of 2022 challenging the said notice. Vide order dated 11.08.2022, the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms :
“3....As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, the impugned notice by itself does not infringe the rights of the petitioner. The petitioner can always place his explanation and only if the proceedings culminate in adverse order, the petitioner can feel aggrieved.
4. I sustain the said objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General. The petitioner is yet to submit his reply in response to the impugned notice.
The petitioner is given four weeks to offer his explanation. The petitioner is permitted to approach the third respondent on 18.08.2022 at 11.00 a.m. in his office. The documents based on which the impugned notice has been issued shall be made available for the writ petitioner's perusal. The petitioner is permitted to take photocopies of the same on his whatsapp. Likewise, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the petitioner may require certain documents so that he 3/13 can give effective reply. It is seen that the petitioner had already given a representation dated 22.07.2022. The respondent shall consider the same and make available those documents which are necessary for the writ petitioner to offer his reply. The said document can also be taken on the petitioner's whatsapp.” The petitioner perused the documents on 18.08.2022, 23.08.2022 and 24.08.2022. The petitioner filed WMP(MD)No.15839 of 2022 on 09.09.2022 seeking extension of time for giving reply. On 28.09.2022, the petitioner gave his reply. It was sent by registered post with acknowledgment card. It was received on 29.09.2022 by the office of the Inspector of Panchayats/District Collector. On 06.10.2022, a fresh explanation containing the very same contents was submitted. On 07.10.2022, the meeting of the village panchayat was convened by the Tahsildar, Srirangam to ascertain the views of the village panchayat. Six members supported the charges. Two remained neutral while one opposed the charges. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 was passed under 205 (11) of the Act by the District Collector removing the petitioner from the post of panchayat president. It was also duly gazetted. Questioning the same, this writ petition came to be filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/13 and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant relied as prayed for.
4.Per contra, the respondents contended that the procedure set out in Section 205 of the Act has been complied with and that interference is not warranted. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner has appeal remedy and that this writ petition cannot be filed without exhausting the same.
5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. It is well settled that a democratically elected panchayat president cannot be dislodged by the executive except in accordance with law. The procedure requires rigorous and strict compliance. Section 205(1) of the Act envisages issuance of notice requiring the panchayat president to offer his explanation with respect to the acts of omission or commission mentioned in the notice. If explanation received from the president is satisfactory further action shall be dropped. If explanation is not received within the specified date or if the explanation received is not satisfactory in the opinion of the District Collector, he shall forward the papers to the jurisdictional Tahsildar of the Taluk a copy of the notice together with the explanation if received within https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/13 the specified date with a proposal for removal of the president for ascertaining the views of the village panchayat. Section 205 (3) of the Act states that the Tahsildar shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the notice and the explanation, if any and the proposal for removal of the president at the office of the village panchayat at a time appointed by the Tahsildar.
6.In this case, the Inspector of Panchayats issued proceedings under Section 205(2) of the Act on 13.09.2022. It called upon the Tahsildar, Srirangam to convene the meeting of the Panchayat, ascertain the views of the members and submit report within fifteen days. It states that on 06.05.2022, notice calling for explanation was issued and that within the time stipulated therein, no explanation was received. Interestingly, the meeting of the panchayat was not convened within seven days thereafter nor was any report submitted within fifteen days. The meeting was convened only on 07.10.2022. The proceedings dated 13.09.2022 does not make any reference to the filing of WP(MD)No.18069 of 2022 by the writ petitioner nor the passing of order on 11.08.2022 nor the filing of WMP(MD)No.15839 of 2022 on 09.09.2022. It is beyond dispute that explanation was received from the petitioner on 29.09.2022. Since by then, the meeting had not been convened, it was incumbent on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/13 the part of the Inspector of Panchayats to have issued revised proceedings.
7.In the decision reported in (2013) 1 CWC 797 (P.Packiyam v. the Inspector of Panchayats/District Collector, Virudhunagar), it was held as follows :
“12.Section 205 of the Panchayat Act is a very drastic provision giving enormous powers to the Inspector of Panchayat to remove a democratically elected Panchayat President from office. Mere removal from office alone is not the consequence of an action initiated under Section 205 of the Act. In case the President is removed from office, it is not possible for him/her to contest the election as President for a period of three years. Such being the case, strict interpretation of the provision is absolutely necessary.
13.The Parliament wanted the Panchayat to develop as an institution of Local Self Government. The Village Administration must be in the hands of the elected representatives of villagers. The Village Panchayat is accountable to the people of the village. Since the Panchayat Raj Institutions were the creation of constitution, the statutory provision, which takes away the powers of the democratically elected members of Panchayat, should be interpreted strictly. The Executive Authority should not be permitted to interfere in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/13 affairs of Panchayat in a routine manner. The Collector and other functionaries under the Panchayat Act should not behave like extra Constitutional Authorities, while dealing with the local body. The Panchayats are no longer the Executive Authorities under the State or the Implementing Agency of the District Administrator. The Panchayat Institutions are now given constitutional status and their position will be borne in mind by the District Collector while exercising power under Section 205 of the Act.
14.The Supreme Court in Bihari Lal Rada v. Anil Jain, MANU/SC/0218/2009 : 2009 (2) SCALE 559, indicated the efforts taken by the Parliament for the purpose of democratic decentralization of power. The Supreme Court said:
"7. Ever since the adoption of the Constitution, there have been efforts at democratic decentralization of power. A reference may be made to Article 40 of the Constitution which obligates the State to take steps to re- organise village Panchayats and endow them with such powers and functions as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-Government. How far the local self-Government institutions at the gross roots have attained the objectives of democratic decentralization always remained a matter of serious and sustained debate. It was felt that the monopoly of leadership by certain groups was deeply disturbing. The poorer and weaker sections of the Society were prevented from https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/13 providing effective leadership. Roles in implementing the community development plans, electoral politics at the gross root level led to patronage. It was perceived that dominant sections in both Panchayati Raj Institutions and as well as Nagarpalikas/Municipalities etc. captured power and used the same for their own ends. All this has contributed to a loss of faith in the gross root democratic institutions.
8. .......................
9 . It was realized that Local Bodies have become weak and ineffective on account of variety of reasons, including the failure to hold regular elections, prolonged supersessions and inadequate devolution of powers and functions. It was felt that the Urban Local Bodies, and as well as Panchayati Raj Institutions have not been able to acquire status and dignity of viable and responsive bodies. One of the reasons noticed as to why these gross root institutions were unable to perform effectively as vibrant democratic units of self-Government was on account of inadequate representation of weaker sections such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled tribes and Women, etc."
16. The District Collector, while exercising power under Section 205 of the Act, should comply with all the requirements strictly as per statute.
The Issue:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/13
19.The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the District Collector should apply his mind and he is required to pass a detailed order in the light of the charges framed against the President and the related explanation. Sub-section (2) of Section 205 does not contain a mandate requiring the Inspector of Panchayat to pass a detailed order. The provision proceeds as if it is open to the District Collector to proceed further in case he is of the opinion that there is no merit in the explanation. Even though there is no statutory requirement to pass a detailed order, still the question would arise as to whether District Collector can simply direct the Tahsildar to convene a meeting without expressing any opinion on the explanation submitted by the President.” The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the decision reported in (2011) 1 CWC 814 (State of Tamil Nadu v.
S.Ramasamy) held that Section 205 is drastic in nature and that it should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and not in routine or casual manner.
8.In matters of this nature, the courts shall insist on scrupulous fidelity and adherence to procedure. Where there is a deviation, the same https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/13 should be interfered with. In this case, the views of the members were obtained without placing the explanation of the panchayat president before them. What was before them was only the notice containing the charges and the proposal for removal of the president. Though the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 28.09.2022, it was not placed. Thus, the ascertaining of the views of the members suffered from a fatal defect and lacuna. The termination order could have been passed under sub-section 11 only after considering the views of the village panchayat. The process adopted in this case suffers from two vices. Firstly, the Inspector of Panchayats ought to have considered the petitioner's explanation before taking action under sub-section (2) of Section 205 of the Act. It is true that the petitioner did not submit his explanation within four weeks from 11.08.2022. But then, on 09.09.2022, he filed a petition for extension of time. In these circumstances, the Inspector of Panchayats could not have issued a mechanical communication on 13.09.2022 to the jurisdictional Tahsildar without taking into account these aspects. The fact remains that on 28.09.2022, explanation was submitted and it was received on 29.09.2022. The meeting was held only on 07.10.2022. Fairness required placing the explanation of the panchayat president along with the notice and the proposal for his removal. The Tahsildar, Srirangam proceeded on the premise that no explanation was received. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/13 This is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the same, I hold that the final order passed by the Inspector of Panchayats is bad in law. Hence, it is set aside. This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.10.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No skm Issue order copy on 17.10.2024 To
1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Trichy District, Trichy.
2.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat) Andhanallurr Panchayat Union, Trichy District.
3.The Assistant Director (Panchayats), Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Collectorate, Trichirappalli.
4.The Assistant Director (Auditing), Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Collectorate, Trichirappalli.
5.The Tahsildar, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/13 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
skm WP(MD)No.26530 of 2022 and WMP(MD)No.20715 of 2022 16.10.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/13