Allowed

K.Gangadharan v. The Inspector of Panchayats

Madras HC22 Apr 2016WP/4891/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition seeking quashing of an order removing the petitioner's cheque signing power as Village Panchayat Vice President. The Court set aside the impugned order, permitting the petitioner to sign cheques again, while directing the District Collector to monitor the petitioner's discharge of functions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner permitted to sign Panchayat cheques as joint signatory; District Collector directed to monitor petitioner's functions.

K.Gangadharan Vs The Inspector of Panchayats — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated :: 22.04.2016

¶3

Coram ::

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

¶5

Writ Petition No: 4891 of 2016

¶6

K. Gangadharan S/o. Kannan Vice President Padiambakkam Village Panchayat Wallajah Panchayat Union Wallajah Taluk Vellore District. .. Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

The Inspector of Panchayats

¶9

and District Collector Vellore District.

¶10

The Block Development Officer ( Village Panchayat ) Wallajah Panchayat Union Wallajah, Vellore District.

¶11

The President Padiambakkam Village Panchayat Wallajah Panchayat Union Wallajah Taluk Vellore District.

¶12

Thiru. M. Kanniappan Ward Member 2^nd Ward, Padiambakkam Village Panchayat Wallajah Panchayat Union Vellore District. ... Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the first respondent in Na. Ka. A4/3326/2-15 dated 12.01.2016 and quash the same.

¶14

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

¶15

For petitioner :: M/s. S. Kamadevan For resps. 1 & 2 :: Mr. R. Rajeswaran Special Government Pleader

¶16

For resps. 3 & 4 :: Mr. J. Lakshmi Narayanan

¶17

Heard Mr. S. Kamadevan the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.R. Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. J. Lakshmi Narayanan learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.

¶18

The petitioner is the Vice President of the Padiambakkam Village Panchayat and he has challenged the order passed by the District Collector on 12.01.2016 in and by which the petitione's cheque signing power as a co-signatory to the Panchayat cheques was divested and handed over to the 4^th respondent who is a elected ward member of the said Village Panchayat.

¶19

At the time when the writ petition was heard for admission, the Court, taking into consideration the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had lodged a complaint against the President of the Village Panchayat to the District Collector alleging manipulation of figures in the cheques and instead of taking action on the said complaint, petitioner's cheque signing power has been taken away, granted an order of interim stay.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the President of the Village Panchayat the third respondent, on the other hand submits that the petitioner has been refusing to co-operate in the administration of the Panchayat, refusing to sign the cheques as a result of which the entire welfare measures of the Village Panchayat has come to a standstill. It is further submitted that the petitioner has developed enemical attitude towards the third respondent on account of political rivalary.

¶21

Though elaborate submissions were made by either side, the only aspect that is required to be examined is the validity of the impugned order based on the reasons assigned thereunder. The reason for passing the impugned order is that the petitioner has not co-operated with the President of the Village Panchayat in signing the Panchayat cheques. Further, the petitioner would state that he has certain valid reasons as to why he had not signed the cheques and that has to be enquired into. It appears that an enquiry was conducted in that regard based on the complaint given by the petitioner and it was found that there is

¶22

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

¶23

no truth in the allegation made by the petitioner.

¶24

Be that as it may, after an interim order was granted on 09.02.2016, the petitioner is signing the cheques and his power has been restored by the proceedings dated 24.02.2016. Prior to the grant of interim order, 7 bank accounts of the Panchayat were not permitted to be operated by the Block Development Officer by passing an order on 02.02.2016. Now that the District Collector has passed an order 24.02.2016, this Court is of the view that such status quo should continue bearing in mind the welfare of the Panchayat. However, the manner in which the petitioner is discharging his function as a Vice President should be monitored by the District Collector and periodical report should be called for and if there is any delinquency then the District Collector may proceed in accordance with law.

¶25

In the light of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to sign the Panchayat cheques as a joint signatory. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are false and taking advantage of such averments and interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner has started a slander campaign against the third respondent. It is made clear that this Court has passed the above order in the writ petition bearing in mind the interest of the Village Panchayat and therefore, whatever allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition could have no bearing on any proceedings that may be initiated by the District Collector and any observations made while granting the interim order is only an observation to point out a prima facie case and that cannot be taken advantage of. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.

¶26

-s/dAssistant Registrar

¶27

True Copy

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

The Inspector of Panchayats

¶31

and District Collector

¶32

Vellore District.

¶33

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

¶34

The Block Development Officer

¶35

( Village Panchayat )

¶36

Wallajah Panchayat Union

¶37

Wallajah, Vellore District.

¶38

The President

¶39

Padiambakkam Village Panchayat

¶40

Wallajah Panchayat Union

¶41

Wallajah Taluk

¶42

Vellore District.

¶43

+1 cc to Mr.J.Lakshmi Narayanan Advocate sr.25271
+1 cc to Mr..S.Kamadevan Advocate sr.25097

¶44

W.P. No: 4891 of 2016
aa02/05/2016

¶45

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

K.Gangadharan v. The Inspector of Panchayats

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Gangadharan v. The Inspector of Panchayats

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

V.Muthu, Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Arumugam, Vs The Director

D.Selvaraj Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep.

M.Manickam Vs Registrar of Cooperative

C.Rajamarthandan Vs the Asst. Commissioner of

R.Vimala Vs Chennai Metropolitan