Disposed

A.Ziaullah v. State by

Madras HC1 Aug 2022CRL OP/8671/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the convening of Grama Sabha meetings, the High Court held that since the petitioner had already deliberated on agendas in previous meetings held in compliance with Government Orders, no writ is necessary. The Court directed authorities to strictly follow G.O.Ms.No.245, 1998 for future meetings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs; direction to follow G.O.Ms.No.245, 1998 strictly.

A.Ziaullah Vs State by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.21282 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.09.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

W.P.No.21282 of 2022

J.Raja Ram

.. Petitioner

1.The District Collector, as Inspector of Panchayat, Chengalpattu District.

¶13

2.The Planning Director (Panchayats), District Rural Development Agency, O/o. District Collectorate, Chengalpattu & District.

¶14

3.The Block Development Officer, Kattangulathur, Chengalpattu District.

4.Nirmala

.. Respondents

Page 1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.21282 of 2022

¶20

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 1.8.2022 seeking to conduct Grama Sabha Meeting at Pulipakkam Panchayat, Chengalpattu District in accordance with law.

¶21

For the Petitioner : Mr.G.Mageshkumar

¶22

For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3

¶23

: Mr.R.Agilesh for respondent No.4

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶26

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner J.Raja Ram, son of Jayaraman, a resident of No.144, Gandhi Salai, No.74, Pulipakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent/District Collector, Chengalpattu to

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.21282 of 2022

¶30

consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1.8.2022 for conducting Grama Sabha Meeting at Pulipakkam Panchayat, Chengalpattu District in accordance with law.

¶31

A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the third respondent/Block Development Officer, Kattankolathur in response to the writ petition.

¶32

Drawing our attention to paragraph (4) of the counteraffidavit filed by the third respondent, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.245, Rural Development (C1) Department, dated 19.11.1998, Grama Sabha Meetings are being convened in every Panchayat on 26^th January, 1^st May, 15^th August and 2^nd October of every year. With respect to Pulipakkam Panchayat, Grama Sabha Meetings are conducted as per the aforesaid Government Order.

¶33

Learned Government Pleader further submitted that for holding Meeting of Grama Sabha, not less than 7 days notice has to be given to deliberate on the Agenda and that the respective Panchayat

¶34

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.21282 of 2022

¶37

by way of notice, auto canvassing, canvassing through respective Ward Members, will ensure that the villagers of the said Panchayat get to know about the Grama Sabha Meeting in advance. Even for the meeting that was held on 15.08.2022 more than a week's notice was given to the villagers to deliberate on the Agenda.

¶38

It would be necessary to extract Paragraph (4) of the counteraffidavit filed by the Block Development Officer, Kattankolathur, which reads thus:

¶39

“4. I submit with respect the averments in Paragraph 2, 3 & 4 of the Affidavit, that as per G.O.Ms.No.245, Rural Development (C1) Department, dated 19.11.1998 Grama Sabha Meetings are convened in every Panchayat on 26^th January, 1^st May, 15^th August and 2^nd October of every year. It is stated that with respect to Pulipakkam Village Panchayat, Chengalpattu District, Grama Sabha Meetings are conducted as per above said G.O. It is stated that for holding meeting of Grama Sabha not less than 7 days Notice has to be given to deliberate on the Agenda. It is submitted that the respective Panchayat by way of Notice, auto canvassing, canvassing through respective ward Members will ensure that the Villagers of the said

¶40

Page 4 of 7

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.No.21282 of 2022

¶43

Panchayat get to know about the Grama Sabha Meeting in advance. It is stated that even for the meeting that was held on 15.08.2022 more than a weeks' Notice was given to the Villagers to deliberate on the Agenda.”

¶44

Since the counter-affidavit filed by the Block Development Officer, Kattankolathur states that Grama Sabha Meetings in respect of Pulipakkam Panchayat were conducted on 24.04.2022 and again on 1.5.2022 as per G.O.Ms.No.245, Rural Development (C1) Department, dated 19.11.1998 and the petitioner also took part and deliberated on the Agendas, we do not find any justification for the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

¶45

As per G.O.Ms.No.245, Rural Development (C1) Department, dated 19.11.1998, Grama Sabha Meetings are being held in every Panchayat on 26^th January, 1^st May, 15^th August and 2^nd October of every year. Therefore, we direct the respondent authorities to follow the aforesaid Government Order strictly and convene Grama Sabha Meeting accordingly in every Panchayat.

¶46

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.No.21282 of 2022

¶49

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed

¶50

of. There will be no order as to costs.

¶51

(T.R., ACJ.) (D.K.K., J.)

¶52

28.09.2022 Index : Yes/No bbr

¶53

To:

¶54

1.The District Collector, as Inspector of Panchayat, Chengalpattu District.

¶55

2.The Planning Director (Panchayats), District Rural Development Agency, O/o. District Collectorate, Chengalpattu & District.

¶56

3.The Block Development Officer, Kattangulathur, Chengalpattu District.

¶57

Page 6 of 7

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

W.P.No.21282 of 2022

¶60

T.RAJA, ACJ AND D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

bbr

W.P.No.21282 of 2022

28.09.2022

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.Ziaullah v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ziaullah v. State by

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

Thangaraj @ Tamizharasan Vs State Rep by

Sasikumar Vs the State Rep by Its

N.Ganesan Vs State Rep by

Kumaran Vs the State Rep by

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu

D.Saravanan Balaharan Vs the Inspector of Police