Disposed

Revathi v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Aug 2020WP(MD)/6730/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a panchayat resolution that removed the Vice President's authority to sign cheques and a show cause notice issued by the Block Development Officer. The court refused immediate interference, directed the District Collector to decide within six weeks adhering to established hearing principles, and disposed of the petition without adjudicating on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned resolutions are put on hold. The First Respondent is directed to decide the issue within six weeks.

Revathi Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.6730 of 2020 and

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.08.2020 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.6730 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6100 & 6101 of 2020

¶4

Revathi,

¶5

Vice President, Keelanagachi Panchayat, Mandapam Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram. ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2. The Assistant Director(Panchayat), Ramanathapuram. 3. The Deputy Block Development Officer-3, Mandapam Panchyat Union, Uchipuli, Ramanathapuram. 4. The President, Keelanagachi Panchayat, Mandapam Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram. 5. P.Kavitha, 8^th Ward Member, Keelanagachi Panchayat, Mandapam Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents

¶6

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorai, calling for the records relating to the impugned resolution Nos.50 and 51 dated 08.05.2020 passed by the fourth respondent and the impugned notice of the third respondent signed on 28.05.2020 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For R-1 & R-2 : M/s.J.Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader. For R-3 : Mrs.S.Srimathy, Special Government Pleader. For R-4 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai

¶7

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

¶8

1/3

¶9

W.P.(MD)No.6730 of 2020 and

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶12

The writ petitioner is the Vice President of the fourth respondent Panchayat. Her grievance is that her cheque signing power has been taken away by the panchayat resolution. The resolution has sought to confer the same on the fifth respondent. The third respondent has also issued show cause notice in this regard. The resolution passed by the panchayat and the show cause notice issued by the third respondent have been challenged in this writ petition.

¶13

There is consensus on the either side as regards the procedure laid down in G.O.(Ms)No.92 Rural Development (C.III) Department dated 26.03.1997. The learned counsel on either side drew my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench reported in 2005 (1) CTC 545 (Pugazhendran V. B.G.Balu) in this regard. In the said decision the validity of the Government Order has been upheld. However, it has been made clear that such resolutions can be implemented only after the Inspector of Panchayats/District Collector grants approval. Before granting such approval, the Inspector of Panchayats would give a hearing to the affected party. The relevant paragraph No.27 of the said Judgment reads as under:-

¶14

“27. We would however point out that before granting prior approval it would be the duty of the Inspector of Panchayats(District Collector) to give a hearing to the Vice-President or (President, as the case may be) (which need not be a personal hearing as already mentioned above), and apply his mind and decide by a written order giving reasons as to whether in his opinion, the Vice-President(or President, as the case may be) is refusing to sign the cheque for ulterior motive, or for genuine reasons in the interest of the village panchayat. It will be the duty of the Inspector of Panchayats, to decide this matter objectively and impartially without being influenced by any extraneous pressures of considerations. If the refusal to sign the cheque is for good and genuine reasons in the interest of the Village Panchayat, the Inspector should refuse approval, but if it is for extraneous considerations or is mala fide he should grant it.“

¶15

I am of the view that it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned resolutions or the show cause notice at this point of time. I direct the first respondent to take a decision in this regard. The first respondent will scrupulously adhere to the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench. Till the first respondent takes a decision, the

¶16

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

¶17

2/3

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.6730 of 2020 and

¶19

impugned resolutions will be put on hold and kept in abeyance. The first respondent will decide the issue within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

Assistant Registrar (RECORDS)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

pmu

¶25

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶26

To:

¶27