Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the first respondent contending that:

a. the notice of "No Confidence Motion" was presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti on 22.01.2008 in accordance with Section 212(2) of the Act and it was recorded by him in the notice itself as such, but, he had inadvertently mentioned in his notice that the complaint had been sent to him.

b. as per Section 212(2) of the Act, it is not mandatory that he should frame charges and it is sufficient if a written statement of charges is enclosed with the complaint and since the complaint itself contains draft notice of motion and draft charges for which the petitioners also have given their explanation, they cannot contend that he had not framed charges which is not required under the statute.

c. the complainants have chosen to present one copy of the complaint in person and another copy through "Registered Post" and the receipt of complaint by "Registered Post" does not mean that the complainants have not at all sent it in person; and d. the petitioners cannot avoid the enquiry simply by saying that the draft motion is not signed by any two Members of the Panchayat Union since the complaint which contains everything including the draft charges and draft motion has been signed by 13 out of 16 members of the Council.

8. Heard Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. R. Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.A.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that when the provisions of the Act are mandatory in nature and as such, when each and every procedure contemplated in the Act has to be strictly followed, the impugned orders of the first respondent have to be quashed inasmuch as they were not presented in person to him by any two of the Members of the Council and were only sent through "Registered Post". According to him, as per the provisions of the Act, the persons who are intending to move the "No Confidence Motion" should give a signed motion having 3/5 of the total elected Councillors and two persons should hand over the said request in person and while making the notice of intention in a written form to set the motion in order, this statutory requirement has been given a go-by thereby making the impugned notice vitiated by law. It is also his strong contention that a copy of the motion, along with the written statement of charges, is to be delivered by two elected Councillors in person to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn should call for a report or explanation from the elected office bearer and convene a meeting and as per Section 212(9) of the Act, the first respondent should read the motion of the Councillors in the meeting and the statement of charges and also the reply to the charges and there will not be any debate and the minutes of the meeting will be communicated to the Government which will take a final decision on the "No Confidence Motion" and this mandatory requirement has not been complied with in the case on hand. It has been vehemently contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that there is no draft motion along with the charges and there is also no documentary evidence to show that two Councillors presented the draft motion in person to the first respondent. Assailing the stand taken by the first respondent in the counter that there is no prescribed format for making the complaint this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has further contended that the version of the first respondent that two persons along with four other Councillors approached him at about 8.35 a.m. at his residential bungalow and handed over papers to him together with charges and notice of motion, without disclosing the manner in which the complaint was received by him and without specifying as to who are the persons approached him, throws suspicion over the physical presence of those Councillors before the first respondent. In short, it is the strenuous contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the records have been created by the first respondent after filing of the writ petition to show as if the first respondent has received the complaint in early morning.

12. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent contended that the complaint was both presented in person by two Councillors and also sent by "Registered Post" to the first respondent and the first respondent, inadvertently, had stated in the impugned order that the complaint had been sent to him. He has further contended the first respondent is not at all required to frame charges against the Chairman or Vice Chairman as argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and suffice it is if a written statement of charges and draft motion are enclosed with the complaint.