Partly allowed

N.Devarajan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC11 Dec 2015WP/22067/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Assistant Director had no power to direct the petitioner to remit the amount. The direction was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to submit objections maintaining principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice directing the petitioner to remit the amount is quashed. The petitioner is directed to submit objections within six weeks.

N.Devarajan, Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.12.2015

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.22067/2011 & MP.No.1/2011

¶6

N.Devarajan .. Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector
Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
2. The Block Development Officer
[Village Panchayats]
Sulur, Coimbatore District.

¶7

The Assistant Director of Rural Development [Audit], Coimbatore-18. ..Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.973/2011/A4 dated 16.09.2011 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from in any manner interfering in the functioning of the petitioner as the President of the Chinniampalayam village Panchayat, in the exercise of official functions or from contesting in the Elections for the subsequent period by withholding the No Dues Certificate.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶10

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

¶11

2 The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the President of Chinniampalayam Village Panchayat, challenging the impugned notice issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 16.09.2011. In the said notice, certain issues have been pointed out alleging that certain amount of money is payable to the panchayat and the impugned notice states that the petitioner should submit his reply within a period of fifteen days or he should remit the amounts as determined in the notice.

¶12

3 First of all, the 3^rd respondent has no power to demand the petitioner to remit the amount. Therefore, to that extent where the impugned notice directs the petitioner to remit the amount has to be held to be without jurisdiction. If that portion of the impugned notice is eschewed, then the said notice is only a show cause notice. Therefore, the petitioner should submit a reply to the show cause notice and based on the reply, it is open to the 3^rd respondent to submit appropriate note to the 1^st respondent.

¶13

4 In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned notice insofar as it directs the petitioner to remit the amounts as called for, is quashed. The petitioner is directed to submit his objections to the impugned notice to the 3^rd respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such reply, it is open to the 3^rd respondent to submit appropriate report to the 1^st respondent, which shall be considered in accordance with law, after complying with the principles of natural justice. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶14

AP -s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-II) True Copy

¶15

Sub-Assistant Registrar To

¶16

1.The District Collector Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶17

2.The Block Development Officer [Village Panchayats] Sulur, Coimbatore District.

¶18

3.The Assistant Director of Rural Development

¶19

[Audit], Coimbatore-18.

¶20

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

¶21

- 1 cc to Mr.P.Srinivas, Advocate SR 66654

¶22

- 1 cc to Mr.V.suthakar, Advocate, SR 66661

¶23

- 1 cc to Govt.Pleader SR 66927

¶24

scd(co) prk23/12

¶25

W.P.No.22067/2011

¶26

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

N.Devarajan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Devarajan, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Pondicherry Market Vs Union Territory of Puducherry

T.Kuppuraj Vs The Inspector of Panchayats

The Management of Elgi Vs Presiding Officer

M/S Rane Brake Linings Ltd. Vs the Presiding Officer

M/S.Essay Exports Rep by Its Vs K.Ezhilarasan

L.Perumal Swamy Vs the Chairman