Madras High Court
S.Sivakumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 August, 2018
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.08.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P.No.38842 of 2005 S.Sivakumar ...Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Rural development Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Director, The Rural Development (Panchayat), Near Collectorate, Namakkal. 3.The Inspector of Panchayat cum Collector, Collectorate, Namakkal. 4.Pillanallur Special Village Panchayat, Represented by its Chairman, Gurusamipalayam Post, Rasipuram Taluk,Namakkal District. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorified Mandamus, to call for the records pursuant to the Resolution No.68(3) dated 30.09.2005, by the 4th respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mathivanan For Respondents : M.S.Ramya Revathy Government Advocate ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging a resolution passed by Panchayat naming the auditorium constructed in the weekly market as Bharat Ratna M.G.R.Kalaiyarangam in the 4th respondent Panchayat.
2. The above writ petition has been filed on the ground that, the auditorium was constructed in the Legislative Constituency development fund the member of the Legislative Assembly in his constituency, and the auditorium has been named in the memory of Bharat Ratna M.G.R Kalaiyarangam and the said letter has been placed in the meeting before the 4th respondent Village Panchayat and it has been passed on the very same day. Even though, some objections were raised in the above meeting, without considering the objections, the resolution was passed.
3. According to the petitioner, while the resolution was passed by the Panchayat, without considering the relevant Government orders and circulars issued by the second respondent in respect of naming the buildings and the District Collector in respect of Panchayat, the 3rd respondent herein also did not take any action under Section 202 of the Panchayat Act to cancel the resolution, in the above circumstances, challenging the resolution the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the Auditorium was constructed by a member of the legislative assembly, one Mr.P.R.Sundaram under his legislative constituency development fund and he has submitted a letter to the Panchayat to name the auditorium in the memory of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu M.G.Ramachandran as Bharat Ratna M.G.R. Kalaiyarangam, and a resolution has been passed, based on the request of the member of the legislative assembly. The resolution has been passed unanimously by the members of the Village Panchayat. Auditorium was constructed by the funds allotted by the member of the legislative assembly and the Panchayat has no option except to accept his requirement and no Government Order has been violated.
5. Heard Mr.P.Mathivanan, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms.Ramya Revathy, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent and this Court considered the rival submissions.
6. The grievances of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent passed a resolution, without considering any of the objections raised by the members, and without following the various circulars issued by the Government, and the 3rd respondent the inspector of Panchayat also did not take any action for cancelling the resolution.
7. So far as, the first objection of petitioner is concerned, no material has been placed before this Court to show that any objection has been raised for passing the resolution by the members of the Village Panchayat.
8. The circulars referred to the petitioner, is only relates to naming the building and roads, where the buildings were constructed at the cost of the Panchayat. In the instant case the entire amount has been contributed by a member of the Legislative Assembly under his constituency development fund and no amount has been spent by the Panchayat. Hence, the above circulars are not applicable to this case. Apart from that, no objection has been raised before the 3rd respondent by the petitioner regarding the resolution, hence the 3rd respondent have no occasion to consider the resolution.
9. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition, and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
23.08.2018 vji/gsi Index:Yes/ No Internet: Yes/No To
1.The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by its Secretary, Rural development Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai.
2.The Assistant Director, The Rural Development (Panchayat), Near Collectorate, Namakkal.
3.The Inspector of Panchaya cum Collector, Collectorate, Namakkal.
4.Pillanallur Special Village Panchayat, Represented by its Chairman, Gurusamipalayam Post, Rasipuram Taluk,Namakkal District.
5.The Government Advocate Madras High Court Chennai - 600 104.
V.BHARATHIDASAN,J vji/gsi W.P.No.38842 of 2005 23.08.2018