Madras High Court
T.A. Velu vs District Collector And Ors. on 11 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: AIR 2001 MADRAS 11
Author: P.D. Dinakaran
Bench: P.D. Dinakaran
ORDER P.D. Dinakaran, J.
1. Admittedly the petitioner filed W. P. No. 19607 of 1999 for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the District Collector, the first respondent herein from proceeding further in removing the petitioner from the post of Vice-President, Thakarashi village Panchayat, Ellapuram Panchayat Union, Thiruvallur District and taking away the cheque drawing power on the basis of the petition given by the President, the third respondent herein and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated which reads as follows :
"Learned Special Government Pleader Mr. K.R. Tamilmani submitted that there is no proposal or intention to remove the petitioner from the post of the Vice-President, and that even as on today, he continues to function as Vice-President.
2. Therefore, in view of the submissions made by the Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, the writ petition has to be dismissed. Apparently, the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 24-11-1999 passed by the Inspector of Panchayats permitting one Palani to sign the cheques along with the President in the place of this petitioner, the petitioner has come forwards with this petition.
3. Since this communication is not under challenge in this petition, the writ petition is dismissed, however observing that it is open to the petitioner to take such steps as are open to him with reference to the order of the Inspector of Panchayats dated 24-11-1999. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 28763 of 1999 shall stand dismissed."
2. But without challenging the proceedings of the Inspector of Panchayat dated 24-11-1999, the petitioner again prayed for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore, the cheque drawing powers to the petitioner in the capacity of Vice-President, Thakarakshi village Panchayat, Ellapuram Panchayat Union, Thiruvallur District which is taken away from the petitioner arbitrarily by an resolution dated 22-10-1999 passed by the third respondent (which is approved by the District Collector, Thiruvallur District, the first respondent herein).
3. Mr. V. Dhanabalan, learned counsel for the petitioner complains that the President and one T.K. Palani are signing the cheques Jointly as President and Vice-President respectively and, therefore, contends that T.K. Palani has no right to claim himself as Vice-President as long as the petitioner continues to be the Vice-President.
4. Per contra, Mr. K. R. Tamil Mani, learned special Government pleader placing reliance on Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') contends that the village Panchayat is competent and passed the said resolution dated 22-10-1999 authorising the President and T.K. Palani to operate the funds of the village Panchayat; such resolution in any event got the administrative sanction of the Inspector of Panchayat; and the same need not be judicial in nature giving reasons. In any event, the Inspector of Panchayats by proceedings dated 24-11-1999 has approved the resolution and permitted Mr. T.K. Palani to sign the cheques along with the President jointly and, therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted unless the petitioner challenges the said resolution dated 22-10-1999 of the village Panchayat and the proceedings of the Inspector of Panchayat dated 24-11-1999.
5. In reply, Mr. V. Dhanabalan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that unless such resolution dated 22-10-1999 much less the proceedings of the Collector dated 24-11-1999 had been served on the petitioner, he had no occasion to challenge the same. Hence, it is contended that the only course open for the petitioner is to seek a writ of mandamus as prayed for.
6. I have given a careful consideration on the submissions of both sides.
7. Even though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless the resolution dated 22-10-1999 and consequently the proceedings dated 24-11-1999 are served, he had no occasion to challenge by way of writ of certiorari appears to be justified, in my considered opinion, the petitioner ought to have agitated such point in the earlier Writ Petition No. 19607 of 1999 itself. However, I am obliged to consider to what extent the rights of the petitioner for drawing the cheques of the Village Panchayat funds has been interfered by the impugned resolution dated 22-10-1999 of the Village Panchayat and the proceedings of the Inspector of Panchayat dated 24-11-1999; and if so, whether the relief sought for could be granted as prayed for. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Sections 188(2) and 188(3) of the Act, which read as follows :
Section 188(2) : Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), the Government may direct any village Panchayat to constitute separate funds to which shall be credited such receipt as may be specified and such funds shall be applied and disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed.
Section 188(3) : Subject to such general control as the village Panchayat may exercise from time to time, all cheques for payment from Village Panchayat fund or other funds constituted under Sub-section (2) shall be signed jointly by the President and Vice-President and in the absence of the President or Vice-President, as the case may be; by the Vice-President or the President and another member authorised by the Village Panchayat at a meeting in this behalf.
8. Of course, Mr. K.R. Tamil Mani, learned Special Government Pleader would contend that ultimately the village Panchayat is vested with the general control over the Village Panchayat funds; and all the cheques for payment from Village Panchayat funds or other funds constituted under Section 188(2) of the Act shall be jointly signed by the President and the Vice-President; in the absence of the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, the same shall be signed by the Vice-President and another person where the President is absent, and by the President and another member where the Vice-President is absent and such another member in either case shall be authorised by the village Panchayat in a meeting in this behalf. It is contended that such authorisation shall be subject to general control of the village Panchayat as per Section 188(3) of the Act.
9. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner continues to be the Vice-President. But in the meeting held on 22-10-1999, it was resolved to authorise one T.K. Palani to sign along with the President by a majority vote. The Agenda produced before this Court for passing of the resolution shows that the petitioner was not co-operating with the President and that he was refusing to sign the cheque. Therefore, the Village Panchayat in the meeting held on 22-10-1999, resolved and authorised one T.K. Palani, Councillor, Ward No. 5 of the Village to sign the cheque along with the President. I am of the considered opinion that this Court by exercising the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the correctness of the majority views of the village Panchayat resolved in the meeting held on 22-10-1999, as it would otherwise be an inroad into the democratic values enshrined under the Three-Tier Panchayat Raj Administration enshrined under the Act, particularly when Section 188(3) of the Act confers the general controlling power on the Village Panchayat in disposing the village Panchayat funds and other funds constituted under Section 188(2) of the Act. Even though Section 188(3) of the Act also prescribes who could be authorised to sign the cheques, handling the Village Panchayat funds and other funds constituted under Section 188(2) of the Act, in my considered opinion, such authorisation as intended by the Legislature shall be subject to the general control of the Village Panchayat. Once the Village Panchayat by a just majority resolves, to authorise one T.K. Palani, Councillor, Ward No. 5 of the village instead of the petitioner to sign along with the President for operating the Village Panchayat funds and other funds constituted under Section 188(2) of the Act, except the manner provided in the Act, this Court by exercising Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot hold a judicial review on such general control of the Village Panchayat.
10. But at the same time, I am unable to ignore the correspondence brought to the notice before the Inspector of Panchayat relating to the alleged illegality in operating the Village Panchayat funds and other funds constituted under Section 188(2) of the Act by the President of the Village Panchayat and the related allegations as to the alleged misappropriation of funds; forgery said to have committed by the husband of the President. When such serious allegations are placed before the Inspector of Panchayat, merely because the Village Panchayat had exercised the general control in the matter to sign the cheque, it may not be proper for this Court to put an end to the grievance of the petitioner, as the Inspector of Panchayat has every right to interfere under such circumstances by exercising his powers under Section 202 of the Act and to take an appropriate decision in the matter, when any such decision of the village Panchayat, in his opinion, is in excess of the powers conferred under the Act or any other law, or an abuse of such powers.
11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the grievance of the petitioner even though this Court cannot interfere with the authorisation given by the Village Panchayat in favour of the President and one T.K. Palani for the operation of the funds of the Village Panchayat at this stage, but it is just and necessary to direct the Inspector of Panchayat to expedite and complete the enquiry independently, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, by exercising the powers conferred under Section 202 of the Act, after giving fair and reasonable opportunity both to the petitioner as well as to the President and any other person connected thereto, expeditiously, in any event within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and it is further made clear that the resolution dated 22-10-1999 of the Village Panchayat and the proceedings of the Inspector of Panchayat dated 24-11-1999 shall be subject to the final orders passed by the first respondent, as directed by this Court, as per above order, by exercising the powers conferred under Section 202 of the Act.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 11659 of 2000 is closed.