Disposed

R. Mathi, v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Aug 2014WP(MD)/11194/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an order that removed the petitioner's cheque signing power. The court declined to quash the impugned order but directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation for review within eight weeks. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation for review of the order within eight weeks; Writ Petition disposed of without costs.

R. Mathi, Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.08.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Writ Petition (MD)No.11194 of 2014 and

¶7

M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2014

R.Mathi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

¶12

Trichy District, Trichy.

¶13

2.The Assistant Director (Panchayats), Trichy District.

¶14

3.The Block Development Officer, Lalgudi Panchayat Union, Trichy District. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in A3/3182/2013, dated 18.10.2013 and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.K.Guru

¶18

Additional Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner in this Writ Petition is a President of Valadi Village Panchayat and the prayer is regarding the removal of cheque signing power from the petitioner and entrusting the same with the Block Development Officer, Lalgudi Town Panchayat.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶22

The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that it is against the settled legal principle as held by this Court in Logeswari Vs. The District Collector and others reported in 2013(2) CTC 846 .

¶23

It is to be noted that the impugned order has been passed on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18.10.2013. The reason assigned in the impugned order is that a case has been registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1983 and he was

¶24

¶25

arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.10.2013. The allegation is that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the defacto complainant Balasubramanian for approving of a building plan. The petitioner moved the sub Court for grant of bail and the Sub Court, by order dated 28.10.2013 in C.M.P.No.527 of 2013, released the petitioner on bail subject to conditions. The petitioner is said to be complying with the said conditions.

¶26

It may be true that the legal issue has been considered by this Court in an earlier occasion, but in the said case, the allegation against the petitioner therein was that he was not administering the panchayat properly, whereas the counter allegation was that the Panchayat assistant was not maintaining the accounts properly preventing the petitioner therein from functioning. In the background of those facts, power under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, was extended to take away the cheque signing power of the President and the vice President of the Village Panchayat. This was the subject matter challenge in the said Writ Petition and the decision rendered by this Court stating that there is no power under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, to take away the cheque signing power of the President and the vice President.

¶27

However, the facts of the present case is different. The petitioner has been charged under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1983 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, the facts of both the cases are not on the same pedestal and the cheque signing power has been withdrawn on account of the pending criminal case.

¶28

In any event, there is a representation pending before the first respondent, dated 23.01.2014 and till this date, the same has not been considered. Further, it is submitted that criminal case is still pending and there is no progress. That apart from October 2013 till the date, the petitioner has been managing the affairs of the panchayat without any compliants.

¶29

In the light of the above, while declining to quash the impugned order, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for review of the order, dated 18.10.2013 and such consideration shall be made by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶33

/True copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

¶38

To 1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy. 2.The Assistant Director (Panchayats), Trichy District. 3.The Block Development Officer, Lalgudi Panchayat Union, Trichy District. +1cc to Mr.T/Lenin Kumar,Advocate SR NO.43190 +1cc to Special Government Pleader SR No.43255 W.P(MD)No.11194 of 2014 04.08.2014 rg.12.08.2014 3p/6c

¶39

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

R. Mathi, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Mathi, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Krishnamoorthy, Vs the Supdt. of Police

B.Vasudevan, Vs the Executive Officer

S. Kannan, Vs the Nodel Officer

S.Kumar Vs the District Manager

S. Perumal Ramesh, Vs the Tirunelveli City Municipal

Shally P. Eldoh, Vs the Chairman