Partly allowed

S.Dhanalakshmi, v. the District Collector / Inspector of Panchayat

Madras HC9 Apr 2021WA(MD)/786/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed the appeal partially. It quashed the summons issued on 05/02/2021 directing the appellant to a 'No Confidence' meeting, finding it procedurally incorrect to issue both a show cause notice and a summons simultaneously. The Court held the appellant has the right to furnish objections first for the District Collector to consider.

What did the court decide?

The summons dated 05.02.2021 was quashed. The appellant was directed to submit explanations within seven days. The District Collector is ordered to proceed in accordance with law upon receipt of the e

S.Dhanalakshmi, Vs the District Collector /… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.A.[MD]No.786 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.04.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶6

W.A.[MD]No.786 of 2021 and C.M.P.[MD]No.3537 of 2021

¶7

S.Dhanalakshmi

¶8

: Appellant/Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Collector / Inspector of Panchayat, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶11

2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat,

¶12

O/o. The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Dindigul.

¶13

3.The Block Development Officer,

¶14

Dindigul Panchayat Union Office, Dindigul.

¶15

4.The Tahsildar,

¶16

Dindigul West Taluk Office, Dindigul.

¶17

5.Pallapatti Panchayat, Rep. by its President, Pallapatti,

¶18

Dindigul District.

¶19

: Respondents/Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 23.02.2021 made in W.P.[MD]No.3829 of 2021, on the file of this Hon'ble Court and allow this Writ Appeal.

¶21

Prayer in WP(MD). 3829 of 2021 :

¶22

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue an order or a direction or a writ particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the resolution dated 03/02/2021 and 04/02/2021 issued by the members of the 5th respondent and consequential impugned notice issued by the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.6444/2020/E dated 05/02/2021 and quash the same and pass such further or other order as this Honble Court may deem fit for the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

¶23

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

¶24

1/3

¶25

W.A.[MD]No.786 of 2021

¶26

For Appellant : Mr.T.Selvan For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadass Special Government Pleader

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶29

By consent of both parties, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶30

2.Heard Mr.T.Selvan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶31

3.This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 23.02.2021 made in W.P.[MD]No.3829 of 2021. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant who is the Vice President of Pallapatti Panchayat in Dindigul District, challenging the resolution passed by the fifth respondent Panchayat dated 03.02.2021 and 04.02.2021 and the notice issued by the Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk, fourth respondent dated 05.02.2021.

¶32

4.The Writ Court, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice and he cannot stall the proceedings.

¶33

5.On a careful perusal of the notice issued by the fourth respondent dated 05.02.2021, we find that there are two such notices issued on the same date by the fourth respondent. One is a show cause notice calling upon the appellant to show cause within 7 days, on the representation made by the other ward members expressing no confidence on the appellant and if the appellant does not give her explanation within 7 days, proceedings will be initiated in terms of Section 211 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. But, along with the said show cause notice, another summon dated 05.02.2021 was issued directing the appellant to participate in the meeting of the Panchayat convened by the Tahsildar, in which, 'No Confidence' is to be tabled.

¶34

6.So far as the resolution which was stated to have been passed on 03.02.2021 and 04.02.2021, the writ Court cannot interfere with the same and to that extent the learned Single Bench was right. However, we find that simultaneously, issuing show cause notice and summons, is contrary to the provisions of the Act, because, the appellant is holding the office of the Vice President of the Panchayat and she is entitled to give her objections / explanations on expressing 'No Confidence' against her. The explanation / objection given by the appellant pursuant to such notice is required to be considered by the District Collector and upon dissatisfaction, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

2/3

¶36

W.A.[MD]No.786 of 2021

¶37

he has to record the same and direct the Tahsildar to convene a meeting of the Panchayat to discuss the said resolution regarding 'No Confidence'. On the other hand, if the District Collector agrees with the explanation, however, it would be well open to him to drop the proceedings. In any event, the show cause notice and summons cannot be issued on the same day. Therefore, to that extent, there is procedural irregularity warranting interference.

¶38

7.In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part and the prayer for quashing the resolution dated 03.02.2021 and 04.02.2021, is rejected and summon dated 05.02.2021 alone is quashed and the appellant is directed to submit her explanations to the show cause notice dated 05.02.2021, within a period of seven [7] days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on receipt of the explanation, the first respondent shall proceed in accordance with law. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶40

// True Copy //

¶41

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶42

¶43

¶44

1.The District Collector / Inspector of Panchayat, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶45

2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, O/o. The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Dindigul.

¶46

3.The Block Development Officer, Dindigul Panchayat Union Office, Dindigul.

¶47

4.The Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk Office, Dindigul.

¶48

5.Pallapatti Panchayat, Rep. by its President, Pallapatti, Dindigul District.

¶49

+1 CC to M/s.T.SELVAN, Advocate ( SR-15688[F] dated 09/04/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-15826[F] dated 15/04/2021 )

¶50

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.[MD]No.786 of 2021 09.04.2021

¶51

km(CO)

¶52

TR(16.04.2021) 3P 8C

¶53

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

¶54

3/3

S.Dhanalakshmi, v. the District Collector / Inspector of Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Dhanalakshmi, v. the District Collector / Inspector of Panchayat

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 Executive Officer, Arulmigu Muppandal Vs The Inspector of Labour

M.Mangaleshwari, Vs the Secretary to Government

The Secretary to Government, Vs v. Shenbagaraja

Alagappan Vs the District Collector

Bharathidasan, Vs Karur Sri Ramakrishna Educational and Charitable Trust

Murugesan.P Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer