Dismissed

G. Chandran, v. the District Collector

Madras HC11 Sept 2014WP(MD)/12988/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that the transfer of cheque signing power from the petitioner, Vice-President, to a Ward Member under G.O.Ms.No.146 was valid. The court distinguished the 'Logeswari' case as it involved Section 203 proceedings, not applicable here. The order was found to be based on subjective satisfaction and facts showing non-cooperation, complying with natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

G. Chandran, Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.09.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.12988 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2, 3 & 4 of 2014

¶7

G.Chandran Vice President of Keezhaiyur Village Panchayat S/o.K.Gopal Keezhaiyur Village & Post Madurai District. ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

The District Collector and Inspector of Panchayat Madurai District, Madurai

¶10

The Assistant Director of Panchayat Madurai District, Madurai

¶11

The Block Development Officer Village Panchayat Melur Panchayat Union Melur, Madurai District

¶12

Keezhaiyur Village Panchayat rep.by it's Panchayat President Kalyanaselvi, Keezhaiyur Village & Post Madurai District

¶13

P.Venkatesan

¶14

Member of 1^st Ward of Melappatti Village Keezhaiyur Post, Madurai District

¶15

6.P.Kalyanaselvi ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the second respondent's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned show cause notice in Na.Ka.No.3316/2012/Ou.E(Oo.)A4, dated 04.07.2014 as well as the fourth respondent Panchayat

¶17

¶18

resolution No.15, dated 20.06.2014 and consequential final order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.3316/2012/Ou.E(Oo.)A4, dated 22.07.2014, quash the same and consequently directing the first respondent to issue the cheque signing power of the fourth respondent Panchayat to the petitioner.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkatesan

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, A.G.P., for R1 to R3 Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy for R4 & R6 R5 – No appearance

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Reserved on : 09.09.2014

¶23

Pronounced on : 11.09.2014

¶24

With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶25

The petitioner is an elected Vice-President of Keezhaiyur Village Panchayat and the challenge in this writ petition is to the show cause notice, dated 04.07.2014, issued by the second respondent, resolution No.15, dated 20.06.2014, passed by the fourth respondent Panchayat and the final order, dated 22.07.2014, passed by the first respondent and for consequential direction upon the first respondent to restore the cheque signing power of the petitioner.

¶26

The petitioner would state that he is discharging his function as Vice-President to the satisfaction of the Panchayat and without any delay. It is alleged that the sixth respondent, who is the President of the Panchayat has prevented the petitioner from participating in the panchayat proceedings, disturbing the meeting, threatening the petitioner and therefore the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Keezhavalavur Police Station, on 22.01.2013 and since no action was taken, the petitioner preferred a complaint to the official respondents seeking to take action against the sixth respondent and to direct the fourth respondent to produce accounts. It is stated that a proceedings was issued on 11.02.2012 directing the President as well as her husband not to interfere with the Panchayat administration and to show the accounts to the petitioner.

¶27

Further, it is submitted that the President of the Panchayat was acting against the Rules, cheque books were misused and cheques were not issued in chronological order, petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ signature was forged, Panchayat fund was misappropriated, the petitioner was forced to sign cheques without issuing cash

¶28

¶29

receipts and vouchers, without conducing auction Panchayat works were allotted to the contractor of the sixth respondent's choice that too unregistered contractors, cheques were directly issued to the contractors in their individual names without issuing in the name of the company and payments were effected against the Rules without deducting income tax, sales tax and labour welfare fund and such other complaints. It is stated that based on the complaint, the second respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted a report, dated 01.08.2012.

¶30

The petitioner would further submit that since an enquiry was proceeding in order to prevent the petitioner from discharging his duties, the President of the Panchayat set up other Panchayat members and convened a meeting on 20.06.2014 and passed a resolution to cancel the petitioner's cheque signing power and the said resolution was forwarded to the first respondent. It is submitted that the first respondent, without taking any action on the petitioner's complaints, dated 04.02.2013, 21.03.2014, 05.05.2014, 09.05.2014, 19.05.2013 and 26.06.2014, issued a show cause notice, dated 04.07.2014, based on the resolution. The petitioner submitted his reply, dated 18.07.2014. It is submitted that the first respondent, without taking note of the averments made by the petitioner in the reply, passed the order, dated 22.07.2014, canceling the petitioner's cheque signing power. The said order is impugned herein.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner, after elaborately narrating the factual details and after referring to the various complaints given by the petitioner to the first respondent, submitted that the impugned show cause notice, dated 04.07.2014, itself is bad in law, since without enquiring into the complaint given by the petitioner, now he is being targeted. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has given a detailed explanation for all the allegations made against him and without considering any of those allegations, the first respondent passed a cryptic and non-speaking order, dated 20.06.2014, and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶32

Further, the learned counsel submitted that the said impugned order, dated 20.06.2014, has been passed in utter violation of the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Logeswari v. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, reported in 2013 (1) CWC 787. Further, by relying on the decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kandipedu Panchayat, Katpadi Panchayat Union v. M.Kothanda Reddy, reported in (2005) 1 MLJ 520, it is submitted that the first respondent has to record reasons in writing and has to objectively decide the matter and if the refusal to sign the cheque is for good and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ genuine reasons in the interest of the village Panchayat, the Inspectors should refuse approval, but if it is for extraneous consideration or is mala fide they should grant it.

¶33

¶34

Further, the learned counsel submitted that the respondents referred to G.O.(Ms) No.146, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (C4) Department, dated 17.08.2007, which is being invoked in cases where there is an adversarial relationship between the President and the Vice-President and the facts of each case has to be gone into and the petitioner's demand for records is not an adversarial relationship and therefore the said G.O.Ms.No.146 cannot be applied to the facts of the case. On the above grounds, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned proceedings.

¶35

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, by relying upon the counter affidavit submitted that both the President as well as the Vice-President of the Panchayat are liable for all accounts of the village Panchayat and they are liable for each and everything done by the Panchayat and based on the complaint given by the petitioner as against the President an enquiry was ordered and conducted by the third respondent, who has advised the petitioner as well as the President of the Panchayat to work in a peaceful and uninterrupted manner and to render cooperation with each other. Subsequently, the petitioner gave another complaint stating that he has not signed the alleged four cheques. Based on the said complaint, the second respondent gave appropriate directions to verify the cheques with the Bank and the Bank certified that the signature found in the four cheques is that of the petitioner.

¶36

It is further submitted that the sixth respondent gave a complaint to the third respondent stating that the petitioner is willfully refused to sign the Panchayat cheque and by which salary and E.B.charge etc., are not being made and in spite of advise given by the third respondent, the petitioner refused to sign the cheques. Further, it is submitted that Panchayat Council in it's special meeting held on 20.06.2014, passed a resolution with majority and the petitioner has been served with agenda, attended the metting and signed the attendance register. In the light of the problems existing, the first respondent took action in terms of G.O.Ms.No.146 and sent a show-cause notice to the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that the enquiry revealed that the petitioner with mala fide intention has given a false complaint against the President and refused to sign cheque and therefore the order was passed by the first respondent canceling the cheque signing power. Further, it is stated that the action of the petitioner is tainted with mala fide in order to give trouble to the Panchayat administration and it is virtually resulted in the total collapse of the Panchayat administration.

¶37

Further, it is submitted that the decision in the case of Logeswari (cited supra) is not applicable to the case on hand, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ since the case arose out of an order, which was passed canceling the power of the Panchayat Council to sign cheque and transferred

¶38

¶39

the power to Block Development Board. However, in the instant case, it is transferred to one Ward Member on the ground that the petitioner failed to cooperate in the Panchayat administration. Further, it is submitted that the impugned proceedings are passed after complying with the principles of natural justice and as such there is no error or illegality in the impugned proceedings.

¶40

The learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 6 submitted that the decisions relied on by the petitioner are not applicable and distinguishable on facts. The decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court also cannot be pressed into service since in the said case the power was a quasi-judicial power/function and not an administrative function as defined under G.O.Ms.No.146. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner is not cooperating with the members of the Panchayat and not allowing to do any welfare of the public and the members of the Panchayat lost their confidence. Hence, they passed the resolution to transfer the cheque signing power. Further, it is submitted that there is sufficient power vested with the first respondent to pass the impugned order in terms of G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 17.08.2007. Further, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner has given a reply to the show cause notice and only due to total non-cooperation of the petitioner the impugned proceedings have been passed.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

¶42

The sheet anchor of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Logeswari (cited supra). The said case arose out of an order passed by the District Collector, whereby the cheque signing power of the petitioner was taken away. Thereafter, the District Collector initiated proceedings, under Sections 203 and 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and the order passed under Section 203 of the Act was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The impugned order in the said writ petition was canceling the cheque signing power and entrusting the same to the Block Development Officer. In the instant case, the proceedings have not been initiated under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and therefore the decision in the case of Logeswari (cited supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.

¶43

The decision in the case of Kandipedu Panchayat, Katpadi Panchayat Union (cited supra) was rendered while answering the question as to whether if the President or Vice-President of a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Panchayat refused to sign cheque, should it to be treated as 'absence' within the meaning of the word employed in Section 188 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. After taking note of

¶44

¶45

the decision rendered by another Honourable Division Bench of this Court considering the scope of Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the Honourable Division Bench observed that since the earlier Division Bench held that if the Vice-President or President, by his conduct, makes it impossible for the village Panchayat to function either by neglecting his duties or by causing regular obstruction in the administration or otherwise, he may be said to be 'absent'. Such interpretation of the word 'absence' in Section 188(3) would be taking a practical view otherwise the Vice-President or President as the case may be if he has adversarial relationship with the vice President or President as the case may be can make it very difficult for the village Panchayat to function by acting of refusing to sign cheques. However, if they refuses to sign cheque with ulterior motive, it would make the village Panchayat impossible for function. Ultimately, the Honourable Division Bench observed that the Inspector of Panchayats has to decide the matter objectively and impartially without being influenced by any extraneous pressures or considerations.

¶46

Firstly, it has to be noted that the power under Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act has not been invoked nor it is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner is deemed to be treated as 'absent' within the meaning of 'absence' employed in Section 188(3). The power is traced out to G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 17.08.2007. Under the said Government Order, the Government empowered the District Collector that in exceptional cases, where there is adversarial relationship between the President and the Vice-President, the village Panchayat, may be a resolution authorize any member other than the Vice-President to operate the account along with the President, provided that the prior approval of the Inspector of Village Panchayats (District Collector) should be obtained. It is not in dispute that the village Panchayat has not passed any such resolution. Though the petitioner sought for challenging the resolution, no worthwhile grounds have been raised by the petitioner nor during the course of arguments to show as to how the resolution passed by the Panchayat is bad. Even the petitioner ought to have challenged the resolution in the manner known to law, having not done so, the challenge to the resolution, dated 20.06.2014, fails and it is rejected.

¶47

After the said resolution passed by the Panchayat, a showcause notice was issued to the petitioner making specific allegations. The petitioner though submitted a reply so reiterating the stand taken in the earlier representations, without making any specific averment stating that the allegations made against him is false and that he has not refused to sign the cheque and such other matters. After considering the entire https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ matter and taking note of G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 17.08.2007, the first respondent was of the opinion that the explanation submitted

¶48

¶49

by the petitioner is not tenable and no worthwhile objection is raised and thereafter passed the impugned order. The subjective satisfaction of the Inspector of Panchayats is primordial, which appears on the face of the record. The first respondent has not mechanically proceeded with the matter, but acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice by affording an opportunity by issuing a show cause notice.

¶50

Further, the impugned proceedings have been passed in an objective manner, taking note of the practical difficulties faced by the Panchayat, for such purpose, the first respondent cannot expected to write an order in the nature of judicial order. The impugned proceedings reveal consideration of the relevant factors and therefore it is held to be in accordance with the directions issued by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kandipedu Panchayat, Katpadi Panchayat Union (cited supra).

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that seeking for records and particulars from the President is not an adversarial relationship. However, it has to be pointed out that refusing to sign cheque along with the President is an adversarial relationship. Seeking of records and non-production of the same by the President has to be agitated separately by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that based on the complaint given by the petitioner against the President, action has been initiated and enquiry is in progress. Therefore, the petitioner has virtually confused the two issues and as an elected representative of the Panchayat and having been chosen as Vice-President, the interest of the Panchayat is primordial and he shall discharge his duties bearing in mind the interest of the Panchayat. The conduct of the elected President/Vice-President should be with a view to take forward the Panchayat, ensure better administration and transparency. The first respondent in his counter affidavit stated that the allegation made by the petitioner that his signature is forged in cheques has to be found false on enquiry. Even while giving explanation to the show-cause notice, dated 04.07.2014, the same old objections were raised by the petitioner, which are already pending enquiry before the first respondent as against the President of the Panchayat. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings cannot be faulted.

¶52

In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶55

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

¶56

/True Copy/

¶57

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶58

¶59

To:

¶60

1.The District Collector and Inspector of Panchayat, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶61

2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶62

3.The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Melur Panchayat Union, Melur, Madurai District.

¶63

+1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, in SR. No.51654.

¶64

+1cc to Mr.M.Venkatesan, Advocate, in SR. No.51751.

¶65

ORDER IN W.P.(MD) No.12988 of 2014 11.09.2014

¶66

krk msm 19.09.2014 p8/6c

¶67

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

G. Chandran, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Chandran, 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

A. Ponnusamy, Vs the Registrar

M.Balamurugan Vs the Home Secretary

M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Vs Director of Twon and Country

Cpr Kabaddi Academy Vs Sports Development Authority

Seetha Vs the Special Thasildar

V.A. Zakir Hussain Vs the Tamil Nadu State Election