Disposed

P. Manju v. the Inspector of Panchayat

Madras HC1 Jul 2011WP/15925/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging proceedings initiated for failure to submit a reply within the stipulated time, despite citing lack of education. The High Court did not set aside the proceedings but granted liberty for the petitioner to submit a reply within one week for consideration within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to make representation/reply to the first respondent within one week for consideration within two weeks.

P. Manju Vs the Inspector of Panchayat — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 01.07.2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶5

Writ Petition Nos. 15925 & 15926 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2011

¶6

P. Manju ... Petitioner in both the
writ petitions
-vs-
1.The Inspector of Panchayat-cum-
District Collector,
Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Chetpet Union Office,
Polur Taluk,
Tiruvannmalai District.
... Respondents in both the
writ petitions
3.The Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Mudaiyur Polur Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai District.
... 3 rd Respondent in
W.P.No.15925/11

¶7

Writ Petition No.15925 of 2011 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/2081/2011 dated 23.06.2011 and quash the same.

¶8

Writ Petition No.15926 of 2011 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/1130/2011 dated 17.06.2001 and quash the same.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

For petitioner in both the writ petitions : Mr.M.Dhandapani

¶11

For respondents 1 & 2 : Ms. V.M.Velumani, Spl.G.P. in both the Wps.

¶12

COMMON ORDER

¶13

Writ Petition No.15925 of 2011 has been filed praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/2081/2011 dated 23.06.2011 and quash the same.

¶14

Writ Petition No.15926 of 2011 has been filed praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/1130/2011 dated 17.06.2001 and quash the same.

¶15

Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 in both the writ petitions.

¶16

The prayer in both the writ petitions is one and the same. Hence, by consent of both parties, both writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal. In view of the order that is to be passed in both the writ petitions, the notice to the third respondent in W.P.No.15925 of 2011 is dispensed with.

¶17

Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the reasons that she has not given a suitable reply to the notice within the stipulated time. The reasons for non submission of the reply has been explained in the affidavit stating that the petitioner has studied only upto 7^th standard and that she has given an oral explanation to the second respondent which for some reason has not been forwarded to the competent authority in time, resulting in the initiation of the proceedings under Section 205 of the Panchayat Act and withdrawal of cheque signing power under Section 203 of the Act.

¶18

At this stage, this Court is not inclined to set aside the proceedings under challenge, as admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with the direction to submit a reply. However, considering the nature of the grievance that the reply could not be submitted in time as stated in paragraph 8 of the affidavit and also taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner claims to be educated only upto 7^th standard and was misguided by an officer, the petitioner is given liberty to make

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

representation/reply to the first respondent within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the reply, it shall be considered by the first respondent authority in accordance with law, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the reply as above.

¶21

The writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

smi/ts

¶23

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Asst. Registrar
To,
1.The Inspector of Panchayat-cum- District Collector,
Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Chetpet Union Office, Polur Taluk,
Tiruvannmalai District.
+ 1 cc to Mr. M. Dhandapani, Advocate SR No.38532
+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.38940, 38939
SAI(CO)
SR/26.7.2011

¶24

Writ Petition Nos.15925 & 15926 of 2011

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P. Manju v. the Inspector of Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Manju v. the Inspector of Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.S.Vadivel Vs Chennai Metropolitan

S. Aravindan Vs Chennai Metropolitan

Tamil Nadu Electricity Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

M/S.Sai Regency Power Corpn. Vs the Govt. of Tamilnadu

Tamilarasi, Vs the Commissioner

Indo Shell Automotive Systems Vs Tangedco