Madras High Court
C.Padmanabhan vs The District Collector And on 17 June, 2025
W.P.No.6530 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.6530 of 2025
and W.M.P.No.8969 of 2025
C.Padmanabhan
..Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector and
Inspector of Panchayats
Ranipet District
Ranipet.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayats)
Ranipet District
Ranipet
3.The Block Development Officer (VP)
Arakonam Panchayat Union
Arakonam and Post
Ranipet Distrtict
4.The Tahsildar
Arakonam Taluk
Ranipet District
5.M.Ramachandran
6.Muniammal
(Respondents No.5 and 6 are impledaded
vide order dated 17.04.2025
in W.M.P.No.8968 of 2025) ..Respondents
Page No:1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm )
W.P.No.6530 of 2025
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 4th
respondent pertaining to the proceedings in A1/154/2025 dated 13.02.2025
and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to refer the
allegations made in the show cause notice dated 20.11.2024 to the Assistant
Director of Rural Development (Audit) in terms of Tamil Nadu Panchayats
(Surcharge, Dis allowance and Charge) Rules".
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Kamadevan
For Respondents : Mrs.P.Vijayadevi, GA for R1,R2 and R4
Mr.S.J.Mohamed Sathik, GA for R3
Mr.P.Krishnan for R5 and R6
ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records of the 4th respondent pertaining to the proceedings in A1/154/2025 dated 13.02.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to refer the allegations made in the show cause notice dated 20.11.2024 to the Assistant Director of Rural Development (Audit) in terms of Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Surcharge, Dis allowance and Charge) Rules".
2. The petitioner was elected as President in the Ichiputhur Village Panchayat, Arakonam Panchayat Union, Ranipet District. There were 9 Panchayat members (Ward members) representing the said village Panchayat. Page No:2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025 One of the member's Ramachandran/5th respondent herein, submitted a complaint against the petitioner for misappropriation of panchayat funds. Since no action was taken, the said member filed a writ petition in W.P.No.17041 of 2023, seeking a direction for action against the petitioner and the Panchayat Secretary. In the said writ petition, this Court by its order dated 08.06.2023, directed the 2nd respondent therein, to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate action.
3. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, inspection and audit were conducted by the second respondent and thereafter, orders were passed by the first respondent on 31.08.2023, holding that there were no irregularities committed by the petitioner during the period 2021-2023. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 31.08.2023, the 5th respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30788 of 2023. This Court in its order dated 31.10.2023, disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to form a committee to verify the genuineness of the works completed in the village panchayat. Pursuant to the said orders, a 7 member committee was constituted and it found that all the works were carried out as per the estimates and there were no irregularities. Recording the said Report of the committee, the writ petition Page No:3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025 was dismissed on 22.12.2023. The petitioner states that the 5th respondent also lodged complaints to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, for taking action against the petitioner and the Panchayat Secretary and also filed certain criminal proceedings. While so, on 17.07.2024, the second respondent seized all the panchayat records for causing verification and thereafter, the first respondent issued a notice dated 20.11.2024, under Section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, to the petitioner formulating as many as 23 allegations/shortages and calling for his explanation to the same. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 06.12.2024, stating that all the financial transactions were conducted by him with the consent of the Vice-President, however for reasons best known to the respondents, no action was taken against the Vice-President.
4. Thereafter, based on the order dated 10.01.2025 of the first respondent, the 4th respondent on 13.01.2025, issued a notice under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, informing the petitioner that the panchayat meeting, would be held on 28.01.2025, so as to ascertain the views of the pancahyat members. As the meeting could not be commenced on that day for administrative reasons, the impugned notice was issued on Page No:4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025 13.02.2025, scheduling the meeting on 26.02.2025. Aggrieved over the said impugned notice dated 13.02.2025, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents 1 to 4, in the writ petition would submit that the counter of the respondents 1 to 4 was not necessary and that the respondents 1 to 4 would adopt the counter filed by the respondents 5 and 6. The 5th and 6th respondents were impleaded in the writ petition vide order dated 17.04.2025 in W.M.P.No.8968 of 2025. The 5th and 6th respondents filed a petition to vacate the status quo order dated 25.02.2025, passed by this Court in W.P.No.6530 of 2025. The learned counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents submitted that the affidavit filed in support of the vacate status quo order may be treated as counter in the present writ petition. The respondents 5 and 6 in their affidavit while reiterating the facts, submitted that the first respondent vide proceedings dated 20.11.2024, issued a show cause notice containing 23 violations/shortages committed by the petitioner and sought for his explanation. The first respondent, on 10.01.2025, directed the 4th respondent to call for a meeting of the village Panchayat. Pursuant to the Page No:5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025 directions of the first respondent dated 10.01.2025, the 4th respondent issued the impugned notice dated 13.01.2025, calling for meeting of the village panchayat and its members for an enquiry on the allegations imputed against the petitioner. The respondent stated that the impugned notice was only a summons to Village panchayat members to appear for enquiry and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable and hence deserved to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsels on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice was liable to be set aside as it was in violation of the provisions of the Pnachyat Act. The counsel submitted that the respondents failed to note that for initiation of the proceedings for removal of the President or Vice President, it was mandatory for the District Collector, to form an opinion, either accepting or rejecting the petitioner's explanation to the show cause notice. Only after forming such opinion, the District Collector could direct the Tahsildar to convene the meeting of the Village Panchayat, by forwarding a copy of the show cause notice and the explanation of the petitioner. Page No:6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025
8. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu vs. S.Ramasamy reported in 2011-2-L.W.1000. The counsel further submitted that even the notice dated 20.11.2024, though signed by the first respondent was issued at the instance of the second respondent. The counsel submitted that the impugned notice, based on the mere allegations made against the petitioner, without any opinion being formed by the Collector was illegal and liable to be set aside.
9. The counsel further submitted that the proceedings for removal of the petitioner under Section 205 of the Act, was an abuse of power. The counsel submitted that earlier, the respondents themselves found that the petitioner had not committed any misappropriation or irregularities, while dealing with the panchayat funds and therefore, the present proceedings issued against the petitioner were illegal, malafide and an abuse of power. The counsel therefore prayed to set aside the impugned notice and to allow the writ petition.
Page No:7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025
10. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, on the other hand submitted that by order dated 10.01.2025, the first respondent formed an opinion that the petitioner's explanation was unacceptable and therefore, he issued a direction to the 4th respondent, to convene the meeting of the village panchayat members, for their views on the explanation of the petitioner and the proposal to remove him. The counsel further submitted that the show cause notice dated 20.11.2024, imputing 23 shortages/violations committed by the petitioner, were not part of the earlier proceedings and therefore, by virtue of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.1612 of 2024 dated 08.04.2025, there was absolutely no bar for initiating action for the financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds committed by the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation gave liberty to the respondents to initiate action, if further financial irregularities or misappropriation of funds were noticed and therefore, the writ petition deserved no merit.
11. The facts are undisputed and so the same are not traversed to avoid repetition. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is Page No:8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025 that the show cause notice dated 20.11.2024, was itself vitiated as it was issued by the 4th respondent, who was not the competent authority to issue the same under Section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. It will be relevant to point out here that the petitioner filed an amendment petition in W.M.P.No.14222 of 2025, to incorporate the prayer for a writ of certiorari to quash the show cause notice dated 20.11.2024. However, this Court upon finding no merits in the amendment petition, dismissed the same. Be that as it may, I find upon a perusal of the show cause notice dated 20.11.2024, that it was signed by the 1st respondent and therefore, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner's counsel is baseless.
12. The only issue that now survives for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 13.02.2025, is valid and in conformity with the provisions of Section 205 of the Panchayats Act, 1994. The petitioner's counsel submitted that even without satisfying himself of the acceptability of the petitioner's explanation to the show cause notice dated 20.11.2024, the 1st respondent directed the 4th respondent to convene the meeting of the Panchayat for their views on removal of the petitioner, in contravention of the Page No:9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025 Provisions of Section 205(2) of the Panchayats Act, and therefore, the impugned notice deserved to be quashed.
13. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in 2011(2) LW 1000 in support of his submission. To appreciate the counsel's submission, it is necessary to extract Section 205(2) of the Act.
Section 205(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act reads as follows:
205. Removal of President.
(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 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.
14. It is beyond cavil that the 1st respondent is bound to draw a prima facie conclusion that the petitioner's explanation is not acceptable and that the views of the Panchyat Members is to be secured. It is to be examined if the Page No:10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025 said exercise was undertaken by the 1st respondent before directing the 4th respondent to issue the impugned notice. From the order dated 10.01.2025, of the 1st respondent, it is very clear that the 1st respondent considered the petitioner's explanation to the show cause notice dated 20.11.2024, found it to be unsatisfactory and hence directed the 4th respondent to convene the meeting of the members of the Panchayat. Factually, I find that the mandate of Section 205 (2) of the Act, was followed by the 1st respondent and therefore, I find no merit in the counsel's submission in this regard. The judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. The Hon'ble full Bench of this Court in 2009(4) CTC 609 in the case of District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat, Villupuram District Vs. Devi Parasuraman, laid down the law on the manner of exercise of Power under Section 205 by the Collector. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:.
“15. An order passed by a statutory authority if visited with civil or evil consequences must meet the test of reasonableness. If it prejudicially affects the subject, for example, the President in the present case, then the authority should give reasons. In the case of Consumer Page No:11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025 Action Group (supra) the Supreme Court held that application of mind of an authority at a particular point of time could only be revealed when the order records its reasons. Therefore, u/s 205, if the Inspector being satisfied with the explanation drops the proceeding, he should record it in the proceeding. In case of unsatisfactory explanation or non-explanation, the Inspector cannot take a decision of his own, but required to forward the matter to the Tahsildar for the decision of the Village Panchayat. It is the Village Panchayat, which records reasons in its minutes of the meeting. Normally the Inspector has to act on such decision. In such case, reason being on record, for acceptance of such report no further reason required to be recorded by the Inspector. However, in case the Inspector differs with the decision of the Village Panchayat, to test the reasonableness of such decision, the Inspector is not only supposed to record the reason, but also required to follow the rules of natural justice by communicating the reasons to Page No:12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025 the President by giving an opportunity to explain before coming to a conclusion. “
15. The first respondent having found the petitioner's explanation unsatisfactory has rightly called for the views of the members of the Panchayat by directing the 4th respondent to convene the meeting. The procedure followed by the 1st respondent is in accordance with the mandate of Section 205 of the Act. Since the impugned notice is only a summons, on a conspectus of the facts, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned notice.
16. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings under Section 205 was an abuse of power vested in the 1st respondent. The counsel submitted that even though, earlier the respondents' themselves found that there was no misappropriation of funds by the petitioner, the present proceedings initiated on the same allegations of misappropriation were malafide and illegal. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is refuted by the respondents. According to the respondents, the 23 Page No:13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025 violations/shortages for which the present proceedings are initiated are completely different from the allegations/violations for which earlier proceedings were initiated. Moreover, the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1612 of 2024 dated 08.04.2025, gave liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, if further irregularities or misappropriation of funds were noticed. In my considered view, since the impugned notice is merely a summons and the petitioner has admittedly submitted his explanation, it is for the Village Panchayat to take appropriate decision in its meeting. I therefore find no merit in the said contention of the petitioner's counsel.
17. In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in the writ petition and hence, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.06.2025 (2/2) msv Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order:Non-speaking order Page No:14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025 To
1.The District Collector and Inspector of Panchayats Ranipet District Ranipet.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayats) Ranipet District Ranipet
3.The Block Development Officer (VP) Arakonam Panchayat Union Arakonam and Post Ranipet Distrtict
4.The Tahsildar Arakonam Taluk Ranipet District Page No:15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.6530 of 2025 N.MALA.J., Msv W.P.No.6530 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.8969 of 2025 17.06.2025 Page No:16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm )