Madras High Court
Manivannan vs The District Collector And on 5 September, 2008
Author: P.Jyothimani
Bench: P.Jyothimani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05/09/2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD)No.4979 of 2008 and connected miscellaneous petition. Manivannan .. Petitioner vs. 1. The District Collector and Inspector of Panchayat Tirunelveli District. 2. The Tahsildar Tenkasi Tahsildar Office Tenkasi Taluk Tirunelveli District. 3. The Block Development Officer Keezhapavoor Tenkasi Taluk Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents Prayer Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari for the relief stated therein. !For petitioner ... Mr.R.Thiyagarajan,Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.Mahendran ^For respondents... Mr.T.Raja Addl.Advocate General assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha,Govt.Advocate. ----- :ORDER
The writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the first respondent dated 6.6.2008 by which the first respondent ordered removal of the petitioner from the post of President of Kulasekarapatty village Panchayat which was originally kept in abeyance due to the Court order. By the impugned order, the removal was directed to be implemented from the date of the said order dated 6.6.2008.
2. The facts leading to the passing of the said impugned order by the first respondent are as follows:
(a) In the Local Body election held in the year 2006, the petitioner was elected as President of Kulasekarapatty village Panchayat defeating his rival candidate one C.N.Elango and the election is for a period of five years.
According to the petitioner, the Clerk working in the Office of the Village Panchayat acted against the interest of the Panchayat which was taken serious note of by the petitioner resulting in strained relationship. A complaint has been given against the petitioner to the Vigilance and Anti-corruption by one Selvaraj, who is stated to have disowned the said complaint, however, the said complaint was forwarded to the first respondent for taking appropriate action.
(b) Based on the direction by the first respondent, the Block Development Officer and the Extension Officer have conducted inspection which, according to the petitioner, was conducted in his absence and filed a report to the first respondent on 7.6.2007. Thereafter, it appears that the Assistant Director, Village Panchayat inspected on 16.6.2007 and also filed a report to the first respondent. Based on the said reports, the first respondent issued a show-cause notice as per section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994 (in short, "the Act") to the petitioner on 25.7.2007 calling upon him to explain about the allegations of misappropriation of funds. Since the first respondent had not supplied necessary materials to enable the petitioner to give his reply, the petitioner moved this Court by filing W.P.No.8079 of 2007, in which, a direction was issued by this Court on 28.9.2007, permitting the petitioner to inspect the documents mentioned in his representation dated 11.9.2007 and to take necessary notes and directing to give sufficient opportunity in the further proceedings.
(c) It is also the case of the petitioner that in spite of the said direction given, the same was not complied with and the petitioner made a complaint to furnish documents. Since the documents were not furnished, the petitioner was not able to give reply to the show-cause notice dated 25.7.2007. Without furnishing the documents and in the absence of explanation by the petitioner, the first respondent is stated to have directed the second respondent, the Tahsildar on 23.1.2008 to convene a meeting of the Panchayat on 7.2.2008 to ascertain their views. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation on 28.1.2008 calling for the records and to permit him to take notes. However, it is stated by the petitioner that such opportunity was not given.
(d) It is the further case of the petitioner that for purchasing various materials, there was a resolution passed and he along with Vice President has signed and therefore, the petitioner is not liable. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has predetermined to remove him from the post of President and caused a resolution to be passed against him in the meeting convened on 7.2.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that it was, at that time, he filed W.P.No.1012 of 2008 challenging the show-cause notice dated 25.7.2007 and also the consequential notice issued by the second respondent dated 23.1.2008 for convening the meeting of the village Panchayat on 7.2.2008. Along with the said writ petition, the petitioner filed M.P.No.2 of 2008 for an order of interim stay of the show-cause notice as well as the notice of the second respondent dated 23.1.2008.
(e) When the matter came up for admission on 7.2.2008, on the leaned Special Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents, this Court has directed that the first respondent shall not pass any further order pursuant to the resolution, if any, passed by the Kulasekerapatty Village Panchayat in the meeting said to have taken place on 7.2.2008 on 11.00 a.m. without obtaining prior permission from the Court.
(f) In the counter filed by the respondents in the said writ petition it was informed that in the meeting of the Panchayat convened on 7.2.2008, as per Section 205(2) of the said Act, the petitioner was removed from the post of President on 8.2.2008 and the same has been sent to the Government Press for publication in the Gazette. It is also stated that when the said writ petition in W.P.No.1012 of 2008 came up for final disposal on 16.4.2008, it was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and further directing the respondents to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act and complete the same within a period of four weeks after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the parties concerned and also directing that till such time, the position as on that date shall be maintained and the interim order passed on 7.2.2008 shall also be maintained. It is stated that even thereafter the petitioner required some other information under Right to Information Act and also filed W.P.No.4435 of 2008 which was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to submit the explanation.
(g) It is seen that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 2.6.2008 to the show-cause notice issued by the first respondent on 25.7.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that even before the explanation was submitted by him, the first respondent directed the petitioner to appear before him for a personal explanation on 2.6.2008 by his proceedings dated 30.5.2008, stated to have been issued on the advice of the Government Pleader. The petitioner appeared in person and gave a statement. The petitioner was under the impression that as per the direction of this Court stated above, when he submitted his explanation, further proceedings would be dropped, however, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 6.6.2008, giving effect to the order dated 08.02.2008 and 05.03.2008, removing the petitioner from the post.
(h) The impugned order is challenged on various grounds including that no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the order, that even before submission of explanation by the petitioner, the order of removal has been passed by convening the meeting of the Panchayat, that after receiving explanation from the petitioner as per the direction of this Court, the original order dated 5.3.2008 removing the petitioner cannot be revived and the explanation ought to have been placed before the Panchayat, that the very purpose of permitting the petitioner to give explanation was to enable the petitioner to explain the Panchayat as to the further action to be taken and not for the purpose of allowing the first respondent to revive the order of removal, that the meeting cannot be convened to remove the President and thereafter to receive the explanation and therefore, according to the petitioner the acceptance of explanation from the petitioner by the respondents is only an empty formality and that the meeting convened on 7.2.2008 and the resolution passed therein is invalid as the same has been passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, violative of section 205(1) of the Act.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, while major facts are not in dispute, it is stated that on verification by the Block Development Officer and the Assistant Director of Rural Development (Panchayats), Tirunenlveli by way of inspection on 15.6.2007, it was found that the petitioner being the President of Village Panchayat along with Vice President has misappropriated to the tune of Rs.11,41,796/- in respect of purchase of various items. It was, in those circumstances, a show-cause notice was issued on 25.7.2007 as per section 205(1)(a) of the Act, levelling 16 charges against the petitioner, asking him to submit his explanation within 15 days. The petitioner having received the notice, in his representation dated 13.8.2007 has requested 30 days time to submit his explanation and in spite of giving such time, he has not submitted his explanation. It was, in those circumstances, the removal proposal was taken up and the Tahsildar, Tenkasi was asked to convene a meeting as per section 205(2) of the Act, based on which the Tahsildar issued a notice to the members including the petitioner and the Vice President that the said meeting would be convened on 30.10.2007. 3(a). In the meantime, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.8079 of 2007, wherein a direction was given permitting the petitioner to inspect the documents. It is stated that based on such direction, the records which were handed over to the District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli in respect of a criminal complaint were obtained and copies were taken and sent to the petitioner through the Block Development Officer. It is the case of the first respondent that the petitioner has in fact received the said documents and acknowledged the same on 4.1.2008. In spite of it, he has not chosen to give explanation to the charges. It was, in those circumstances, the Tahsildar has convened the meeting of the Kulasekarapatty Village Panchayat as per section 205(2) of the Act, on 7.2.2008 by giving notice to all members including the petitioner. It is stated that on 7.2.2008 the meeting was held and the minutes of the meeting of the Village Panchayat along with the report was sent on the same day viz., 7.2.2008. It was, after examination of the entire papers, the first respondent has decided to remove the petitioner having concluded that the charges of misappropriation, malpractice and falsification have been proved and the notification to that effect was approved by the first respondent on 8.2.2008 and sent to the Government Press, Chennai, which was published on 5.3.2008. 3(b). It was due to the reason that, in the meantime, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.1012 of 2008, in which there has been a interim direction on 7.2.2008 to the effect that no orders should be passed based on the resolution dated 7.2.2008 without getting prior permission from the High Court and therefore, the notification removing the petitioner from the office of the President dated 8.2.2008 and the Gazette publication were not served on the petitioner and the same was kept in abeyance. Ultimately the writ petition was disposed of on 16.4.2008 with direction to the petitioner to give explanation and directing the first respondent to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act and complete the same within four weeks stating that till such time, the position as on date shall be maintained by continuing the interim order dated 7.2.2008.
3(c). It was based on the direction of this Court , the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation, however, the petitioner has not submitted his explanation. Without submitting explanation, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4435 of 2008 and there was a direction by this Court that the petitioner can file his explanation within two weeks. According to the first respondent, it was, based on the order of this Court in W.P.No.1012 of 2008 and W.P.No.4435 of 2008 and based on the legal opinion from the Government Pleader, the petitioner was directed to appear for enquiry and personal hearing before the first respondent on 2.6.2008 and the petitioner accordingly appeared and submitted his explanation and also submitted his statement on the said date. After examining the explanation and other details given by the petitioner, and coming to the conclusion that there is no substance in the explanation, the first respondent has decided to implement the notification dated 8.2.2008 which was kept in abeyance pursuant to the order of this Court and it is, on that basis, the impugned order dated 6.6.2008 came to be passed. 3(d). The legal points raised by the petitioner in the writ petition have been denied. It is the specific case of the first respondent that personal hearing was given to the petitioner only pursuant to the direction of this Court and therefore, there is no necessity to send a report to the Panchayat once again for decision, since the Panchayat had already taken a decision to remove the petitioner on 7.2.2008 itself which was published in the Gazette on 5.3.2008 and kept in abeyance due to the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1012 of 2008 dated 7.2.2008. It is, thereafter, as per the final order passed in the said writ petition on 16.4.2008, opportunity was given and as directed, the impugned order was passed in accordance with law and there is no necessity to place the matter once again before the Panchayat.
4. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that to the show-cause notice issued on 25.7.2007 as per section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994, the petitioner has not submitted his explanation till 7.2.2008, when the respondent Panchayat is stated to have passed a resolution removing the petitioner from the post of President of Kulasekarapatty village Panchayat. His submission is that on the same day, viz., 7.2.2008 the interim order was passed by this Court in W.P.No.1012 of 2008 in which the learned Special Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of the respondents, directing the first respondent, District Collector, Tirunelveli, not to pass any further order pursuant to the resolution stated to have been passed in the meeting convened on 7.2.2008 without obtaining prior permission from the Court.
4(a). According to him, while disposing of the writ petition No.1012 of 2008 finally by order dated 16.4.2008, this Court, has not given permission to pass any further order, but, on the other hand, there was a direction to the petitioner to submit his explanation and thereafter, permitting the first respondent to proceed with the enquiry and complete it within four weeks after affording opportunity of personal hearing. In the absence of any such direction given by this Court permitting the first respondent to pass further orders pursuant to the resolution dated 7.2.2008, the impugned order of the first respondent is against the order of the Court.
4(b). It is also his further submission that pursuant to the final direction of this Court dated 16.4.2008 in W.P.No.1012 of 2008, when the first respondent has given opportunity to the petitioner of personal hearing on 2.6.2008 and in fact, the petitioner has appeared before the first respondent on 2.6.2008 and submitted his explanation, as per law it is not for the District Collector to pass the impugned order of removal of the petitioner and he ought to have referred the explanation to the Village Panchayat for its views. 4(c). The learned counsel would also submit that while, in this case, the original show-cause notice itself was issued under the suo motu power of the first respondent, after the explanation was submitted to the first respondent as directed by this Court, for the reason that this Court in the final disposal of the writ petition has directed the first respondent to complete the enquiry within a stipulated time, it does not mean that after such enquiry, the first respondent is permitted to pass orders. His submission is that inasmuch as the explanation of the petitioner was not placed before the Panchayat, the requirement of section 205(2) was not complied with. 4(d). It is also his contention that the conduct of the first respondent in keeping the earlier order of removal dated 7.2.2008 and the subsequent approval stated to have been given by the first respondent dated 8.2.2008 would not exonerate the obligation on the part of the first respondent to follow the provisions of section 205(2) of the Act. According to him, it is only the view of the Panchayat that would decide about the removal or otherwise of the President and inasmuch the explanation submitted by the petitioner as per the direction of this Court has not been placed before the Panchayat and the Panchayat has not applied its mind, and therefore, there is no question of removal of the petitioner from the office of President. He would also submit that the provisions of section 205(2) is mandatory. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat (A.I.R. 1987 SC 1073) and submit that the ratio of a decision is not an authority for what logically follows from it.
5. On the other hand, Mr.T.Raja, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that at the first instance the writ petition is not maintainable. According to him, the writ petitioner has not come with clean hands. His second submission is that the petitioner has got statutory effective alternative efficacious remedy by approaching the Government and without resorting to the same, the present writ petition being filed is not maintainable. His further submission is that as per the final order passed in the writ petition dated 16.4.2008, which was an order passed on the basis of the undertaking of the petitioner to abide by the earlier order dated 7.2.2008, an opportunity was directed to be given only to explain the case of the petitioner. 5(a). It is also his case that in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, there was a direction by the High Court to give some documents and then, permit the petitioner to peruse the same, pursuant to which copies were furnished to the petitioner which were received and acknowledged by the petitioner stating that whatever the documents required by him were received and in spite of that, the petitioner has not chosen to give explanation resulting in the first respondent to direct the Tahsildar to convene a meeting on 7.2.2008, in which a decision was taken to remove the petitioner and that was approved on 8.2.2008. It is his case that the date on which the resolution was passed by the Panchayat, viz., 7.2.2008, the petitioner has filed the subsequent writ petition and by that time, the Panchayat had already taken a decision and the Tahsildar reported the same in compliance of section 205(2) of the Act and by approving the said resolution, the Collector has taken steps to notify the same in the Government Gazette by order dated 8.2.2008. 5(b). According to him, the first respondent in obedience to the interim order of this Court has kept the proceedings in abeyance. It is his submission that even by the final order passed in the writ petition on 16.4.2008, the High Court has not set aside the resolution passed by the Panchayat dated 7.2.2008 or the subsequent notification issued on 8.2.2008 and only directed the first respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner and till then, kept the resolution dated 7.2.2008 in abeyance. Therefore, according to him, as per the direction of the Court, the personal hearing was conducted and after being satisfied that there was no substance in the objections made by the petitioner, orders were passed for implementing the earlier decision of the Panchayat dated 7.2.2008. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order is only to implement the earlier order of the Panchayat dated 7.2.2008 and not the order of the District Collector, viz., the first respondent. 5(c). It is his submission that even after notification was published, the Government has always got power under section 205(12) of the Act either to cancel or to postpone or to revise any resolution (notification) and without resorting to the alternative remedy, the writ petition cannot be maintained. He would insist that the conduct of the petitioner, after receiving the documents, in not submitting his explanation resulted in the authority contemplated under the law, viz., the Panchayat to pass resolution on 7.2.2008, which decision has never been assailed in any competent court as on date. 5(d). It is his case that the petitioner has chosen to make a new request so as to enable him to approach this Court by filing a third writ petition. Learned Additional Advocate General would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another vs. State of U.P. and others( 2008(1) SCC 560 ) and submit that the conduct of the petitioner in repeatedly approaching the Court would have to be taken adverse note of, particularly when the petitioner has got effective alternative remedy under section 205 (12) of the Act. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co., Ltd., vs. State of Orissa [1983 (2) SCC 433]. He would submit that neither the resolution of the Panchayat dated 7.2.2008, nor the order of the first respondent dated 8.2.2008 effecting publication of notification, nor the notification dated 05.03.2008 have ever been set aside by the Court and the petitioner has not challenged the same.
6. In reply to the same, the learned senior counsel Mr.R.Thiyagarajan would submit that the remedy of appeal under Section 205(12) or revision to the Government under section 219 of the Act, are not effective remedy at all.
7. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the entire records.
8. Before adverting to the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, and also various orders passed by this Court in various proceedings initiated by the petitioner, it is relevant to narrate some of the admitted facts in this case. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner came to be elected as President of Kulasekarapatty village Panchayat in 2006 for a period of five years and as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994, particularly section 205(1)(a), a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent being the Collector and Inspector of Panchayats bringing out nearly 16 charges against the petitioner. In respect of the said charges, even though belatedly, the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the first respondent on 2.6.2008, which is also stated to be the date on which pursuant to the final direction given by this Court on 16.4.2008 in W.P.No.1012 of 2008, the petitioner was given opportunity to appear before the first respondent and the petitioner was also present and submitted his explanation during the personal hearing.
9. It is also not in dispute that the meeting of the Panchayat was held on 7.2.2008 as convened by the Tahsildar, Tenkasi viz., the second respondent and the proceedings of the meeting along with his report are stated to have been sent by the second respondent to the first respondent and it is stated that the first respondent has approved the report on 8.2.2008 and the same was published in the official Gazette on 5.3.2008 as it is referred in the impugned order of the first respondent.
10. This Court in W.P.No.1012 of 2008 filed by the petitioner, by order dated 7.2.2008, while recording the appearance of the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents, has posted the case to 21.2.2008 directing the first respondent not to pass any further orders pursuant to the resolution if any passed on 7.2.2008 without obtaining prior permission of the Court and the said order is as follows:
" 15. Before proceeding to consider the case of the petitioner, it would be appropriate for this Court to look into the order passed by this Court on 07.02.2008 in M.P.No.2 of 2008 in this petition which reads as follows:
"Mr.R.Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. He seeks time for getting instructions. Post on 21.02.2008.
The first respondent shall not pass any further orders pursuant to the resolution if any passed by the Kulasekarapatty Village Panchayat in the meeting said to have taken place on 07.02.2008 at 11.00 a.m. without obtaining prior permission from this Court."
It is, this interim order dated 7.2.2008, which is stated to have been received by the first respondent on 9.2.2008 and thereafter, the decision was kept in abeyance.
11. After receiving the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner under section 205(1) of the Act on 25.7.2007, the petitioner filed the first writ petition in W.P.No.8079 of 2007 for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent therein viz., the Block Development Officer, Keelapavoor Panchayat Union, Tirunelveli District, to consider his representation dated 12.9.2007 and to issue documents sought for by him in the said representation. Even though the said representation of the petitioner dated 12.9.2007 was not placed before this Court, it is seen from the order passed in the said writ petition dated 28.9.2007 that in the said representation, the petitioner sought for supply of copies of certain documents and registers to enable him to give reply to the show-cause notice. This Court taking note of the fact that the first respondent has initiated proceedings against the petitioner under section 205(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and considering that it is not practicable for the first respondent to supply various documents like, cash books, stock registers, etc., has directed the first respondent to permit the petitioner to peruse the documents, also with the permission to take notes from the said documents, if the petitioner desires, and the operative portion of the said order is as follows:
" 5. But, it is seen that some of the documents which the petitioner has sought for, are actually cash book, vouchers, stock register and other registers. It may not be practically possible for the respondent to furnish copies of these documents. At the same time, the petitioner should have an opportunity to peruse the documents so that he is able to defend himself properly in the enquiry under section 205.
6. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to permit the petitioner to inspect the documents mentioned in his representation dated 11.09.2007 during working hours at the office of the second respondent. If the petitioner wishes to take notes from these documents, he shall be permitted to take notes so, that he is able to defend himself in the enquiry. It is needless to state that sufficient opportunity shall be given to the petitioner before further proceedings are taken under section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994."
12. Pursuant to the said direction, it is seen that the third respondent, the Block Development Officer, has in fact furnished Xerox copies of the documents required by the petitioner to him and having received the same, the petitioner has given acknowledgment on 4.1.2008 clearly stating that he has received all the required documents. The said letter of the petitioner dated 4.1.2008 is as follows:
ehs;/4/1/08 efy;fs; (Mtz';fs;) bgw;Wf;bfhz;lJ rk;ge;jkhf/ Iah.
tzf;fk;. jpUbey;ntyp khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiyth; kw;Wk; Cuhl;rpapd; Ma;thsh; mth;fspd; 25/7/07k; g[jpa m6-245-07 vz; tpsf;fk; nfhUk; mwptpg;g[ bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;s Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fSf;F tpsf;fk; mspf;f njitahd Mtz';fspd; xsp efy;fs; brd;id. cah;ePjpkd;wk; kJiu fpis jPh;g;gpy; bjhptpj;jg;go. jpUbey;ntyp khtl;lf; Fw;wg;gphptpy; ,Ue;J bgwg;gl;L. mjd; efy; fPHg;ght{h; Cuhl;rp xd;wpa tl;lhu tsh;r;rp mYtyh; (fp//C/) mth;fsplkpUe;J bgw;Wf;bfhz;nld;/ xk;//////////////// jiyth;
,uz;lhk; epiy Cuhl;rp Fynrfug;gl;o/
13. The third respondent, the Block Development Officer, having supplied the said documents to the petitioner has in fact communicated the said fact to the Assistant Director of Rural Development, Tirunelveli in his communication dated 4.1.2008 enclosing a list of Xerox copies of documents furnished to the petitioner, in which list also the petitioner has acknowledged on 4.1.2008 for having received the said documents. The said letter of the third respondent dated 4.1.2008 and the enclosed acknowledgment with list of documents are as follows:
mDg;g[eh; bgWeh;
jpU/r/ntY Cuf tsh;r;rp cjtp ,af;Feh;
tl;lhu tsh;r;rp mYtyh; (Cuhl;rpfs;)
fPHg;ght{h;/ jpUbey;ntyp/
M3-2781-2007 ehs; 04/01/2008
Iah
bghUs;:Cuhl;rp eph;thfk; - fPHg;ght{h; Cuhl;rp xd;wpak; - Fynrfug;gl;o Cuhl;rp - Cuf tsh;r;rp cjtp ,af;Feh; (Cuhl;rp) Ma;t[ -
fz;lwpag;gl;l epjp ,Hg;g[ kw;Wk; KiwnfLfs; - Cuhl;rp rl;lk; 205 ,d; fPH; Cuhl;rp kd;w jiytUf;F tpsf;fk; nfhug;gl;lJ - tpsf;fk; mspf;f
- jpUbey;ntyp khtl;lf; Fw;wg;gphptpy; ,Ue;J bgwg;gl;l xsp efy;fs; tH';fpaJ - bjhlh;ghf/ ghh;it: jpUbey;ntyp khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiyth; kw;Wk; Cuhl;rpfspd; Ma;thsh; mth;fspd; 25/7/2007 Mk; njjpa m6-2452-2007 vz; tpsf;fk; nfhUk; mwptpg;g[/ //////////// fPHg;ght{h; Cuhl;rp xd;wpak; Fynrfug;gl;o Cuhl;rpapy; jpUbey;ntyp Cuf tsh;r;rp cjtp ,af;Feh; (Cuhl;rp) mth;fshy; Ma;tpd; nghJ fz;lwpag;gl;l epjp ,Hg;g[ kw;Wk; KiwnfLfSf;F ghh;it (1)y; fhQqk; jpUbey;ntyp khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiyth; kw;Wk; Cuhl;rpfspd; Ma;thsh; mth;fshy; Cuhl;rp kd;w jiythplk; Cuhl;rp rl;lk; gphpt[ vz;/205 ,d; fPH; tpsf;fk; nfhug;gl;lJ/ ,J bjhlh;ghd Mtz';fs; jpUbey;ntyp khtl;lf; Fw;wg;gphptpy; xg;gilf;fg;gl;lJ/ jw;nghJ mjd; xsp efy;fs; bgwg;gl;L. 4/1/2008 md;W Fynfrug;gl;o Cuhl;rp kd;w jiytUf;F tH';fg;gl;L jiythplk; xg;g[jYk; bgwg;gl;lJ vd;gij gzpt[ld; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,izg;g[ xg;g[jy; mwpf;if/ xk;........................
tl;lhu tsh;r;rp mYtyh;
(fpuhk Cuhl;rp) fPHg;ght{h;/ jpUbey;ntyp khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiyth; kw;Wk; Cuhl;rpapd; Ma;thsh; mth;fspd; 25/07/2007k; njjpa m6-2452-07d; tpsf;fk; nfhUk; mwptpg;gpy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;s Fw;wr;rhl;LfSf;F tpsf;fkspf;f Fynrfug;gl;o Cuhl;rp kd;wj; jiytuhy; nfhug;gl;l fPH;fhQqk; Mtz';fs; (xsp efy;) mz;zhhplk; fPH;f;fz;l tpgug;go xg;gilf;fg;gLfpwJ/ M3-2781-2007 ehs; 04/01/2008 FoePh; guhkhpg;g[ gzpfs; kw;Wk; cjphprhkhd;fs; th';fpaJ t/vz;/ br/rP/vz;; ehs; bjhif 1 158 10/11/06 13450 2 170 16/11/06 3257 3 180 29/11/06 4445 4 181 29/11/06 3825 5 189 4/12/06 2250 6 192 12/12/06 2240 7 197 18/12/06 4200 8 198 19/12/06 3180 9 202 21/12/06 4175 10 203 20/12/06 2850 11 210 27/12/06 4400 12 211 30/12/06 1800 13 217 13/01/07 8800 14 219 19/01/07 3440 15 220 19/01/07 4200 16 225 31/01/07 5864 17 227 31/01/07 2896 18 234 02/02/07 8350 19 236 31/01/07 2289 20 241 09/02/07 2800 21 242 09/02/07 3982 22 243 09/02/07 2600 23 247 15/02/07 3900 24 249 15/02/07 11500 25 250 20/02/07 3062 26 252 20/02/07 3405 27 253 20/02/07 2868 28 258 28/02/07 4686 29 259 28/02/07 3600 30 263 01/03/07 3833 31 265 01/03/07 4524 32 264 01/03/07 3850 33 266 01/03/07 4072 34 267 01/03/07 4693 35 269 08/03/07 3640 36 271 08/03/07 3500 37 278 12/03/07 21640 38 284 12/03/07 2850 39 289 12/03/07 12150 40 293 21/03/07 4579 41 294 21/03/07 4317 42 298 22/03/07 12200 43 301 26/03/07 1736 44 306 26/03/07 5450 45 308 26/03/07 6027 46 313 29/03/07 14600 47 318 30/03/07 4895 48 319 30/03/07 3800 49 320 30/03/07 3900 50 321 30/03/07 3600 51 322 30/03/07 19600 52 5A 03/04/07 14600 53 13 17/04/07 5149 54 14 17/04/07 5692 55 15 18/04/07 6163 56 20 24/04/07 11160 57 21 25/04/07 12000 58 25 02/05/07 3500 59 26 02/05/07 4500 60 33 03/05/07 3650 61 34 03/05/07 4934 62 35 03/05/07 4840 63 36 03/05/07 4750 64 37 03/05/07 3200 65 38 03/05/07 3250 66 39 03/05/07 4300 67 45 08/05/07 11450 68 48 14/05/07 12600 69 51 01/06/07 12300 70 53 12/06/07 3248 71 54 12/06/07 5063 72 55 12/06/07 4853 73 56 12/06/07 4688 2/ ruz; tphpg;g[ gzp & jhh; rhiy t/vz;/ br/rP/vz;; ehs; bjhif 1 168 16/11/06 5600 2 177 24/11/06 8800 3 183 29/11/06 5600 4 187 04/12/06 4600 5 191 12/12/06 4900 6 196 18/12/06 4900 7 204 21/12/06 4300 8 211 30/12/06 3600 9 214 13/01/07 5800 10 221 19/01/07 2800 11 312 29/03/07 4000 12 316 29/03/07 4200 13 299 23/02/07 167000 226100
3. Rth; tpsk;guk; kw;Wk; bts;isaoj;jy;
t/vz;/ br/rP/vz;; ehs; bjhif 1 160 10/11/06 5400 2 162 13/11/06 5600 3 169 16/11/06 3000 4 176 16/11/06 3000 5 201 20/12/06 8500 6 303 26/03/07 5200 7 24 02/05/07 3900 34600 4/ kiHePh; nj';fpaij btspnaw;wpa gzpf;fhd tutpdk;/ t/vz;/ br/rP/vz;; ehs; bjhif 1 164 13/11/06 2800 2 193 12/12/06 2800 3 194 12/12/06 2800 4 184 30/11/06 2800 5 166 16/11/06 7000 18200
5. Kl;bro mfw;wpaJ t/vz;/ br/rP/vz;; ehs; bjhif 1 206 26/12/06 4800 2 209 27/12/06 2800 3 212 20/12/06 1800 4 280 14/03/07 7600 5 315 30/03/07 6000 6 215 13/03/07 6100 29100
6. bjUtpsf;F guhkhpg;g[ kw;Wk; cjphp ghf';fs; th';fpa brytpdk;
t/vz;/ br/rP/vz;; ehs; bjhif 1 159 10/11/06 22900 2 167 16/11/06 3800 3 175 21/11/06 18920 4 195 18/12/06 17830 5 213 09/01/07 22760 6 235 02/02/07 5780 7 240 09/02/07 8480 8 254 20/02/07 8530 9 272 09/03/07 21170 10 288 16/03/07 16700 11 300 26/03/07 5637 12 309 29/03/07 7104 13 310 29/03/07 18670 14 323 30/03/07 19600 15 3 03/04/07 22290 16 5 07/04/07 18480 17 12 19/04/07 4840 18 16 17/04/07 14405 19 22 25/04/07 4820 20 31 02/05/07 18600 21 44 07/05/07 30270 22 57 12/06/07 5500 23 58 12/06/07 900 317986 7/ gj;jphpf;if tpsk;guk;
t/vz;/ br/rP/vz;; ehs; bjhif 1 195A 13/12/06 1125 2 205 26/12/06 2625 3 230 01/02/07 5250 4 237 07/02/07 1800 5 245 12/02/07 1650 6 268 06/03/07 1875 7 285 14/03/07 3800 8 286 14/03/07 1800 19925 8. jsthlrhkhd;fs; th';fpaJ t/vz;/ br/rP/vz;; ehs; bjhif 1 173 17/11/06 7765 7765 9. etPd fHpg;giw gGJ t/vz;/ br/rP/vz;; ehs; bjhif 1 179 29/11/06 4445 4445 10. FoePh; bjhl;ofs; Rj;jk; bra;j bryptdk; t/vz;/ br/rP/vz;; ehs; bjhif 1 211 30/12/06 2600 2 283 15/03/06 2800 5400 11. Rfhjhu gzpfSf;fhd brytpdk; t/vz;/ br/rP/vz;; ehs; bjhif 1 186 04/12/06 4800 2 317A 30/03/07 3200 3 27 02/05/07 3000 11000 Xk;........................... bgw;Wf;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ.
xg;gilf;fg;gl;lJ xk;...................................... Block Development Officer jiyth;
(Village Panchayat) ,uz;lhk; epiy Cuhl;rp Keelapavoor. Fynrfug;gl;o/"
14. It is true that having received the said documents, the petitioner has not chosen to give his explanation to the show-cause notice and on the other hand, by the subsequent letter dated 9.1.2008 addressed to the first respondent, he has requested for various ledgers, log books, etc. The said conduct of the petitioner can certainly be treated as an evasive attitude. It is, due to the said attitude of the petitioner in not giving explanation, the meeting of the Panchayat was convened by notice dated 23.1.2008 as per section 205(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act fixing the date of meeting as 7.2.2008. It is, after the said notice fixing the date of meeting of the Panchayat, the petitioner by his representation dated 28.1.2008 addressed to the first respondent has expressed his grievance that he was not given opportunity to submit his explanation, which according to him, is against the direction of this Court dated 28.9.2007 issued in W.P.No.8079 of 2007.
15. The petitioner appears to have filed the second writ petition in W.P.No.1012 of 2008 on 6.2.2008 not only challenging the meeting notice dated 23.1.2008, but also the original show-cause notice issued on 25.7.2007 as per section 205(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. It was, when the said writ petition was moved before this Court on 7.2.2008, this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2008 in W.P.No.1012 of 2008 has passed an interim order as elicited above, "directing the first respondent not to pass further orders pursuant to the resolution if any passed by the Kulasekarapatti Village Panchayat in the meeting said to have taken place on 07.02.2008 at 11.00 a.m. without obtaining permission from the Court". Ultimately, the writ petition came to be disposed of finally on 16.4.2008, by which neither the show-cause notice dated 25.7.2007, nor the subsequent notice calling for the meeting dated 23.1.2008 impugned in the said writ petition were set aside by this Court. However, this Court considering the admission made by the petitioner as well as the respondents that the order of the Panchayat dated 7.2.2008 has been kept in abeyance based on the interim order dated 7.2.2008, has made certain directions permitting the petitioner to submit his explanation and directing the first respondent to give personal hearing and till passing final order, to maintain the earlier interim order dated 7.2.2008 and the basis for such direction was that this Court ultimately desired that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to give his explanation, which is evident from the reasons given by this Court while disposing of the writ petition and the relevant portion of the order is as follows:
" 18. Before the submission of explanation by the petitioner, the first respondent has proceeded further considering that the documents sought by the petitioner are not relevant for submitting his explanation and the petitioner has rushed to this Court immediately the this Court, on consideration of his case, has passed an order directing the first respondent not to pass any further orders pursuant to the resolution if any passed by the Kulasekarapatty Village Panchayat in the meeting said to have been held on 07.02.007 at 11 a.m. Without obtaining prior permission from this Court. This order has been made available to the respondents on 09.02.2008 by the petitioner and also on 11.02.2008 by the telegram sent by the learned Special Government Pleader. In such circumstances, it is the obligation of the respondents to comply with the order of this Court and they cannot proceed further in respect of the meeting convened on 07.02.2008 and also the resolution. Pursuant to that, a meeting has been convened and resolution has been passed on 08.02.2008 itself and the same has been sent to the Government. Because of the delay in communicating the order, the respondents have proceeded with the resolution on 08.02.2008 and however, on receipt of the communication on 09.02.20089, the impugned proceedings passed in the meeting convened on 07.02.2008 and the resolution passed on 08.02.2008 have been kept in abeyance and this is not disputed by any of the parties and therefore, in view of the implementation of the order of this Court dated 07.02.2008, the petitioner is continuing in the office as on date.
19. In the light of the various circumstances as pleaded and also the outcome of the report submitted by the Block Development Officer and the Assistant Director of Panchayat, it is the duty of the respondents to proceed further on submission of explanation by the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is having the documents which he had sought from the respondents based on which he can very well submit his explanation to the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents can proceed with in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A fair submission has been made by the learned counsel on either side that the order of this Court has been implemented by keeping the impugned proceedings in abeyance. This being the position, the petitioner can very well submit his explanation to the respondent pursuant to which the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
20.Therefore, at this stage, taking into account the above position and the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel expressing the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, this court disposes of the writ petition with the following directions:
(a) The petitioner shall submit his explanation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(b) Thereafter, the respondents shall proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act and complete the same within a period of four weeks, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the parties concerned.
(c) Till such time the position as on today shall be maintained and the interim order passed by this Court on 07.02.2008shall also be maintained."
16. It is astonishing to note that even after the above said final order was passed, the petitioner, instead of giving his explanation, has chosen to write another letter dated 20.4.2008 to the Assistant Director (Panchayats), Tirunelveli stating that he requires 6/2007 diary of the Assistant Director and the Jeep log book and has moved the third writ petition in W.P.No.4435 of 2008 in the vacation Court, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents therein to consider the petitioner's representations dated 24.3.2008 and 20.4.2008 and to furnish Monthly Diary Report and Jeep Log Book of the Assistant Director (Panchayats) Tirunelveli for the month of June, 2007. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 14.5.2008 with the following order:
" Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for he respondents.
2. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner seeks for a direction directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2008 and 20.04.2008 and to furnish the monthly diary report and jeep log book of the second respondent for the month of June 2007.
4. Even though the petitioner had raised several contentions relating to supply of documents, ultimately the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a time for furnishing the explanation may be extended so that the petitioner can file his explanation.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner can file his explanation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is ultimately aggrieved by any order, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the order in accordance with law.
6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is also closed."
17. It was only thereafter, the petitioner has chosen to give his explanation on 2.6.2008 by appearing before the first respondent, pursuant to the notice given by the first respondent based on the final decision given in W.P.No.1012 of 2008 dated 16.4.2008. On the factual situation, there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been dragging on the matter without furnishing explanation and repeatedly approaching the Court under one pretext or the other. Classically it is seen that for the purpose of approaching this Court for the third time, the petitioner has made a fresh representation dated 20.4.2008 in addition to the earlier representation 24.3.2008, which was available when the final order was passed in the second writ petition on 16.4.2008 and the giving of the representation dated 20.4.2008 can only to be presumed to create a cause of action for filing the third writ petition.
18. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, the conduct of the petitioner in repeatedly approaching this Court without submitting his explanation even after receiving necessary documents as acknowledged by him on 4.1.2008 cannot certainly be termed as genuine one. In Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another vs. State of U.P. And others [(2008) 1 SCC 560], it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the writ jurisdiction being equitable one, the suppression of any material fact should not be taken lightly and the conduct of a person to have recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again can be presumed to be abuse of process of law. In the context of the factual situation therein, viz., a party having been unsuccessful in his attempt to stall the recovery proceedings against the Samiti, a fictitious welfare Sanstha, namely, Udhyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha was started for the purpose of filing a Public Interest Litigation and finding that the conduct of the appellant in filing various writ petitions in various names is abuse of process of law, the Apex Court has held as follows:
"15. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar vs. M/s.Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and Another (1980 (3) SCC 311), this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt."
That was also the view taken by the Supreme Court in G.M., Haryana Roadways vs. Jai Bhagwan & Another [2008 AIR SCW 2252].
19. However, by looking into the factual aspects which have been narrated above, especially in the light of the final order passed in W.P.No.1012 of 2008 dated 16.4.2008, permitting the petitioner to submit his explanation within two weeks, pursuant to which the petitioner has in fact submitted his written explanation to the show-cause notice on 2.6.2008 and of course, in the meantime, the petitioner approached this Court for the third time and in the light of the said direction and the conduct of the petitioner in submitting explanation and taking into account that the petitioner is an elected President of Kulasekaranpatty village Panchayat, in my view, the issue has to be looked into as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the relevant provisions of the said Act.
20. Under the Act, in respect of the Panchayats, the District Collector is the Inspector within the definition of section 2(16) which is as follows:
" Inspector" means any officer not below the rank of a collector appointed by the Government to exercise or perform any of the powers or duties of the Inspector under this Act."
21. The office of the President of Village Panchayat is by way of election by persons whose names appear in the electoral rolls for the village panchayat and the term of office of President is five years. The provision relating to election of President especially after the amendment under Tamil Nadu Act 30/95 stands as follows:
" Section 43.Election of President.-
(1)(a) The president shall be elected by the persons whose names appear in the electoral roll for the village panchayat from among themselves in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.
(b) If at an ordinary or casual election, no president is elected, a fresh election shall be held:
[Provided that a person who stands for election as president shall not be eligible for to stand for election as a member of a village panchayat, a member of a panchayat union council or a member of a district panchayat:
Provided further that no president shall be eligible to stand for election as a member of a village panchayat, a member of a panchayat union council or a member of a district panchayat.] (2) The election of the president may be held ordinarily at the same times and in the same places as the ordinary elections of the members of the village panchayat.
(3) The term of office of the president who is elected at an ordinary election shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in, be five years beginning at noon on the day on which the ordinary vacancy occurs. (4) Any casual vacancy in the office of the president shall be filled by a fresh election and person elected as president in any such vacancy shall enter upon office forthwith and hold office only so long as the person in whose place he is elected would have been entitled to hold office, if the vacancy had not occurred.
(5) Unless the [Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner] otherwise directs, no casual vacancy in the office of the president shall be filled within six months before the date on which the ordinary election of the president under sub-section (1) is due.
(6) The provisions of sections 34 to 41 (both inclusive), shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the office of the president as they apply in relation to the office of an elected member of the panchayat. (7) The president shall be an ex-officio member of the village panchayat and shall have all the rights and privileges of an elected member of the village panchayat."
22. In respect of removal of elected President of Village Panchayat, an elaborate procedure is contemplated under section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The removal can be initiated by the Inspector either suo motu or on representation by the members of the village Panchayat in sufficient number as contemplated under section 205(1) to be presented in person to the Inspector at least by two members of the village Panchayat. On receipt of such representation or on his own motion, if the Inspector satisfies himself that there is a willful omission or disobeying of any Rule, abuse of power, etc., the Inspector shall ask the President to offer his explanation in respect of the commission or omission within a stipulated time. On receipt of such explanation within the time stipulated, if the Inspector is satisfied with the explanation, he may drop further proceedings and if explanation is received out of the specified time or if the explanation is not found satisfactory, the Inspector has to forward to the Tahsildar a copy of the notice as well as the explanation by the President if it is received within the time with the proposal for removal of the President so as to ascertain the views of the Village Panchayat. Therefore it is clear that the views of the Village Panchayat has to be necessarily ascertained by the Inspector before the removal of the President and that is possible only by forwarding a copy of the notice and the explanation submitted by the President, to the Tahsildar to be placed before the Village Panchayat.
23. Thereafter, the Tahsildar convenes the meeting of village Panchayat for consideration of the said notice and explanation along with the proposal to remove the President, by giving notice to the President and all other members giving minimum seven days time before the date of meeting and the Tahsildar shall preside over the meeting and such meeting shall not be adjourned for any reason and in the said meeting the Tahsildar reads the notes of the Inspector and the explanation if any of the president along with the proposal for removal of the President and leaves it for the consideration of the Panchayat and there is no debate allowed and the Tahsildar also cannot speak about the merits of the notice nor he be entitled to vote. The only duty of the Tahsildar is to record the views of the village Panchayat in the form of minutes and the copy of minutes shall be forwarded by him to the Inspector. Thereafter, the Inspector, considering the views of the village Panchayat, of course, in his discretion either to remove the President from office by notification with effect from the date specified or to drop further action. Therefore, it is clear that it is only based on the views of village Panchayat, which is recorded and forwarded to him, the Inspector takes a decision either to remove or to drop further action. When the view of the village Panchayat is the basis for the Inspector of Panchayats to take a decision in respect of removal of the President, it is clear that such act of the Inspector has to be done not for the reasons formed by the Inspector himself, but the reasons formed by him based on the views of the village Panchayat. This enshrines the principle of democratic concept by which the hierarchy is directed by law to take action based on the views of the elected members of the village Panchayat.
24. After approval, the Inspector notifies the same, and of course, such notification can be cancelled by the Government under section 205(12) of the Act. The importance of such an elaborate procedure and imposing a statutory duty on the Inspector of Panchayats to pass orders considering the view of the Panchayat is revealed in section 205(13) of the Act. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to section 205 of the Act, which is as follows:
" Section 205.Removal of President.-
(1) The Inspector-
(a) of his own motion, or
(b) on a representation in writing signed by not less than two-thirds of the sanctioned strength of the village panchayat containing a statement of charges against the president and presented in person to the Inspector by any two of the members of the village panchayat, is satisfied that the president wilfully omits or refuses to carry out or disobeys any provision of this Act, or any rule, by-law, regulation, or lawful order made or issued under this Act or abuses any power vested in him, the Inspector shall, by notice in writing, require the president to offer within a specified date, his explanation with respect to his acts of omission or commission mentioned in the notice.
(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. (3) The Tahsildar shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the notice and the explanation, if any, and the proposal for the removal of the president, at the office of the village panchayat at a time appointed by the Tahsildar.
(4) A copy of the notice of the meeting shall be caused to be delivered to the president and to all the members of the village panchayat by Tahsildar at least seven days before the date of the meeting.
(5) The Tahsildar shall preside at the meeting convened under this section and no other person shall preside threat. If, within half an hour appointed for the meeting, the Tahsildar is not present to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to a time to be appointed and notified to the members and the president by the Tahsildar under sub-section (6). (6) If the Tahsildar is unable to preside at the meeting, he may, after recording his reasons in writing, adjourn the meeting to such other time as he may appoint. The date so appointed shall be not later than thirty days from the date so appointed for the meeting under sub-section (3). Notice of not less than seven clear days shall be given to the members and the president of the time appointed for the adjourned meeting.
(7) Save as provided in sub-sections (5) and (6), a meeting convened for the purpose of considering the notice and the explanation, if any, and the proposal for the removal of the president under this section shall not for any reason, be adjourned.
(8) As soon as the meeting convened under this section is commenced, the Tahsildar, shall read to the village panchayat the notice of the Inspector and the explanation if any, of the president [and the proposal for the removal of the president], for the consideration of which it has been convened. [8(A) There shall be no debate in any meeting under this section]. (9). The Tahsildar shall not speak on the merits of the notice or explanation nor shall he be entitled to vote at the meeting. (10). The views of the village panchayat shall be duly recorded in the minutes of the meeting and a copy f the minutes shall forthwith on the termination of the meeting be forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Inspector. (11). The Inspector may, after considering the views of the village panchayat in this regard, in his discretion either remove the president from office by notification with effect from a date to be specified therein or drop further action.
(12). The Government shall have power to cancer any notification issued under sub-section (11) and may, pending a decision on such cancellation, postpone the date specified in such notification.
(13). Any person in respect of whom a notification has been issued under sub-section (11) removing him from the office of president shall, unless the notification is cancelled under sub-section (12), be ineligible for election as president until the date on which notice of the next ordinary elections to the village panchayat is published in the prescribed manner, or the expiry of one year from the date specified in such notification as postponed by the order, if any, issued under sub-section (12) whichever is earlier."
25. By applying the procedure enunciated under section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, it is clear that, (1) the Inspector has to issue a show-cause notice for removal of the President whether such proposal has been initiated on his own motion or on the representation by the required number of members of the Panchayat and such show- cause notice shall require the President to submit his explanation; (2) on receiving such explanation, on being satisfied that the President is liable to be removed, the Inspector has to send a copy of the notice viz., show-cause notice, explanation and his proposal to the Tahsildar for convening meeting of Panchayat. Therefore, even if the Inspector decides at this stage, after receiving the explanation that the same is not satisfactory and the President is liable to be removed, he cannot do so, but he has to send the proposal along with the notice and explanation to the Tahsildar to be placed before the Panchayat to ascertain the views of the Panchayat; (3) the view of the Village Panchayat is recorded in the form of minutes by the Tahsildar and the same is sent to the Inspector. The Inspector, on the basis of the view, exercises his discretion either to remove the President or to drop the proceedings as stated above. The discretion to be exercised by the Inspector is only based on the view of the village Panchayat. Therefore, in the absence of the view of village Panchayat when the matter is referred to it through the Tahsildar, the Inspector cannot take any decision; (4) it is true that at the stage of receiving the explanation, if the Inspector is satisfied with the explanation, he can drop further action and it is equally true that after considering the views of the village Panchayat also he can either notify for removal of President or drop further action. In the later case, his decision must be based on the views of village Panchayat; (5) the powers of the Government under section 205(12) of the Act to cancel any notification issued by the Inspector under section 205(11) either for removing the President or dropping further action can be invoked by any affected party, even though the same cannot be treated as appellate power.
26. In the context of the above said legal position regarding the procedure pertaining to the removal of the President of the village Panchayat, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner has got an effective remedy of appeal under section 205(12) of the Act is not only unsustainable, but the same is also not as per the guiding principles enshrined under section 205 of the Act. Even otherwise, it cannot be stated on the factual matrix of the case that due to the existence of the powers of the Government under section 205(12) of the Act to cancel the notification, the writ petition cannot be maintained. In the absence of the petitioner's explanation to the show-cause notice issued by the Inspector having been considered by the village Panchayat and its views having been expressed, I do not think that any useful purpose will be served in directing the petitioner to approach the Government under section 205(12) of the Act.
27. For the same reason, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be driven to file a revision before the Government under section 219 of the Act, while it is true that pending decision for cancellation of notification issued by the Inspector, the Government under section 205(12) of the Act can postpone the date specified in the said notification, because it is the power of granting interim order by the Government, as elicited by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by P.D.Dinakaran,J, (as His Lordship then was) in the order dated 13.3.2006 in W.A. (MD) No.98 of 2006 (Sivaperumal vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others). Such power of the Government, even if it is treated as appellate power under section 205 (12) or the power of revision under section 219 of the Act, can be usefully exercised by the Government only in the light of the view expressed by the Panchayat in the proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar, which is a cardinal principle of the concept of democracy. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered view that on the factual situation, the writ petition cannot be thrown out on the basis that it is not maintainable or on the basis that the appellate remedy is available under section 205(12) of the Act.
28. As it is stated earlier, while the conduct of the petitioner does not appear to be genuine, on the basis of his repeated approach to the Court by taking contradictory stand and against his own acknowledgment of having received the documents, all his unwanted conduct got scrapped, the moment when this Court has passed the final order on 16.4.2008 in W.P.No.1012 of 2008, permitting the petitioner to submit his explanation in respect of the show-cause notice dated 25.7.2007 based on which in fact, the first respondent/Inspector has directed the petitioner to appear in person and accordingly, the petitioner appeared and produced his written explanation to the show-cause notice. The further direction to the first respondent, the District Collector to conduct enquiry by affording a personal hearing may not be necessary since section 205 does not confer any power on the Inspector to make an enquiry and give personal hearing or any right on the President to ask for an enquiry. Such part of the direction given by this Court can only be treated as forming part of the principles of natural justice in granting permission to the petitioner to offer his explanation as per section 205(11) of the Act and not beyond that.
29. When the petitioner, in accordance with the direction of this Court stated above, has given explanation, what is followed under the provisions of section 205 is that the show-cause notice along with the explanation, of course, with the proposal of the Inspector to remove the petitioner, has to be placed before the village Panchayat for ascertaining its views. The first respondent having given an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation, of course, as per the direction of this Court as stated above and having received such explanation from the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 25.7.2008, has to necessarily wait for the view of the village Panchayat. Even though it is true that on 7.2.2008, the views of the Panchayat were ascertained, the said views which were obtained in the absence of explanation from the petitioner, have no legal basis, especially after 16.4.2008 when the final order was passed in W.P.No.1012 of 2008. Simply because an interim order was passed in the said writ petition on 7.2.2008 directing the first respondent not to pass any further order based on the resolution of the Panchayat, based on which the first respondent has in fact kept the notification in abeyance, it does not mean that he will be entitled to give effect to the resolution of the Panchayat dated 7.2.2008 even after receiving the explanation of the petitioner dated 2.6.2008 as per the Court direction and without informing the same to the village Panchayat. Such view would only defeat the very object of the said provision of the Act by taking away the powers of the elected body of the village Panchayat to have its own view about its President based on the show-cause notice, explanation and proposal of the Inspector.
30. Further, the mere direction by this Court in the writ petition dated 16.4.2008 that the first respondent shall proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act and complete the same has to be only harmoniously construed to mean that the respondents, especially the first respondent shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 205 (1) of the Act as it is available to him, after receiving explanation from the President against whom show-cause notice has been issued.
31. In view of the above said legal and factual aspects elicited, even though I am of the considered view that the impugned order of the first respondent dated 6.6.2008 and also the notification issued by the first respondent under section 205(1) of the Act dated 5.3.2008 are to be set aside, the first respondent must be directed to proceed against the petitioner as per section 205(2) of the Act taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 2.6.2008 and proceed further as per the said provision. In view of the same, the writ petition stands allowed with the following directions:
(1)The impugned order of the first respondent dated 6.6.2008 stands set aside along with the notification dated 05.03.2008.
(2)The first respondent shall take into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 2.6.2008 to the show-cause notice issued by him on 25.7.2007 and along with his proposal shall forward the same to the Tahsildar for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the village Panchayat by following the provisions of section 205 of the Act and after obtaining the views of the village Panchayat, shall pass orders as per section 205(11) of the Act.
(3) No costs.
(4) Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
kh To
1. The District Collector and Inspector of Panchayat Tirunelveli District.
2. The Tahsildar Tenkasi Tahsildar Office Tenkasi Taluk Tirunelveli District.
3. The Block Development Officer Keezhapavoor Tenkasi Taluk Tirunelveli District.