Dismissed

M.Lakshmi v. The District Collector

Madras HC24 Apr 2023WP/28904/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, Vice-President of a Panchayat, challenged an interim order removing her cheque-signing powers and appointing a Ward Member. The High Court found the order was a valid interim measure for smooth administration due to the petitioner's non-cooperation and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to challenge the final order of the District Collector once passed. Connected WMPs closed.

M.Lakshmi Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.28904 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Date of Reserving Order Date of Pronouncing Order 20.03.2023 24.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶6

WP.No.28904 of 2022 and

¶7

WMP.Nos.28198, 28199 of 2022 & 8050 of 2023

¶8

M.Lakshmi, W/o.Muthagarajayachandiran, 122/36, Murugan Koil Street, Naaraiyur Post, Keezpennathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, Tamil Nadu 606754. ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶11

2.Block Development Officer, Keezpennathur, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶12

3.The President, Agaram Panchayat, Naaraiyur Post, Keezpennathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶13

4.Anbzhagan, Ward Member, Agaram Panchayat, Naaraiyur Post, Keezpennathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶14

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

¶15

1/11

¶16

W.P.No.28904 of 2022

¶17

5.The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Vettavalam Branch, 152, Gandhi Salai, Vettavalam, Tiruvannamalai 606 754.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertains to the impugned order passed by the 1 st Respondent bearing reference No.Na.Ka.No.2575/2022/A2/OE.(OO)-The.Ko., dated 06.10.2022 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan For Respondents : Mr.V.Ramesh (for R1) Government Advocate Mr.K.Karthik Jaganath (for R2) Mr.P.Nethaji (for R3) for Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari

¶21

Mr.R.Jayaprakash (for R4)

¶22

R5 – No appearance

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Petition has been filed to call for the records pertains to the impugned order passed by the 1 st Respondent bearing reference Na.Ka.No.2575/2022/A2/OE.(OO)-The.Ko., dated 06.10.2022 and quash the same.

¶25

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

¶26

2/11

¶27

W.P.No.28904 of 2022

¶28

2.The then Vice President of the Agaram Panchayat, Thiruvannamalai District filed this Petition to quash the order of the District Collector/1 st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.2575/2022/A2/OE.(OO)-The.Ko., dated 06.10.2022.

¶29

The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:

¶30

“Mifahy;. Mfuk; fpuhk Cuhl;rpapd; eph;thfk; chpa Kiwapy ; bray;glt[k;. mt;t{uhl;rpapd; Cuhl;rpkd;w jPh;khdk;. tl;lhu tsh;r;rp mYtyhpd; (fp/C) ghpe;Jiu. ghh;itapy; fhQqk; murhizfs;. Cuhl;rpfs; rl;lk; kw;Wk; Cuf tsh;r;rp kw;Wk; Cuhl;rpfspd ; ,af;Fehpd; tHpfhl;Ljy;fs; Mfpatw;wpd; mog;gilapy; ,J bjhlhghf; kW cjjut[ gpwg; gpf; fg; gLk; tiu; mfuk; Cuhl;rp fzf;Ffspy; bghJ epjp nkyhz;ik mikg;gpd; K:yk; eilbgWk; epjp ghpth;j;jidfs ; (PPA-Print Payment Advice) kw;Wk; fhnrhiyfspy; ,iz ifbahg;gkpl mfuk; fpuhk Cuhl;rpapd; ehd;fhtJ thh;L cWg;gpdh ; jpU/u/md;gHfd; vd;gtUf;F mDkjp mspj;J ,jd; K:yk ; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/ ” ( emphasis supplied)

¶31

There is reference of the 3 rd Respondent's letter viz., President of the Panchayat,

¶32

enquiry conducted by the Block Development Officer and the Assistant Development Officer and various Government Orders in the impugned order.

¶33

3/11

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.28904 of 2022

¶36

3.The sum and substance of the impugned order is that based upon the report submitted by the Block Development Officer and statement recorded from the members of the Panchayat and based upon the resolution passed by the Panchayat, the District Collector/1 st Respondent has passed an order nominating the 4^th Respondent viz., IV Ward Member as a co-signing authority for the cheque, instead of the Vice President, the Petitioner herein. On perusal of the order it reveals that “it is until further orders” and hence, I find that it is only an interim arrangement and it is not the final orders, removing the Vice President from the cheque signing power, as contemplated under Section 188 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994.

¶37

4.Learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that as contemplated under Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, the cheque signing power of the Vice President can be cancelled only in his absence, which is a physical absence or legal inability to perform the functions and duties of the Vice President. The 1^st Respondent cancelled the cheque signing power, merely in the ground that the Petitioner refused to sign the cheque would not be considered as absence of Vice President, thus the impugned order is in

¶38

4/11

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.28904 of 2022

¶41

violation of Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994.

¶42

5.The learned counsel for the 3^rd Respondent based upon the counter

¶43

would contend that the Petitioner usually refuses to sign the PFMS form for the salary of the Overhead Tank Operator, Panchayat Secretary's and Sweepers namely E.Manivanan, Ramesh, Illavarasan and S.Maduranbal, Kamsala respectively because they belong to Most Backward Community & Scheduled Community and thereby, she is trying to destruct communal harmony in the Panchayat. He also drew my attention to paragraph 9 of the counter of the R3 for emphasising the fact that on 03.06.2022, proposal was made in the General meeting of the Panchayat, cancelling the cheque signing power of the Petitioner who is the Vice-President of the Panchayat and to assign the same to Mr.Anbazhagan, member of IV Ward, the 4^th Respondent herein. The resolution was passed on 13.06.2022, being approved by five ward members and the President. He would contend that the Petitioner is a puppet in the hands of her husband and the husband is dictating the terms and refused to sign for payment of the employees, over head tank operator, Panchayat Secretary, Sweepers and even the PPA viz., Print Payment Advice.

¶44

5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.28904 of 2022

¶46

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

¶47

7.From the affidavit and the counter affidavit filed by the Petitioner and

¶48

the Respondent and argument advanced by the Petitioner, I find that the President of Agaram Panchayat has stated that the Petitioner (Vice President) was not co-operating with the President and other ward members and therefore, the resolution was passed on 13.06.2022 in the Panchayat meeting by recommending to cancel the cheque signing power of the Vice-President, the Petitioner herein and from discharging the duties and responsibilities as VicePresident and further recommended to appoint the 4^th Respondent Mr.Anbazhagan Ward Member - IV of Agaram Panchayat to discharge the duties of signing cheques and other financial transactions.

¶49

7(a).Based on the complaint dated 22.02.2022 sent by the President of the Panchayat, the 2^nd Respondent by his letter dated 18.08.2022 & 13.09.2022 sent to the 1^st Respondent recommended to take action on the complaint dated 22.08.2022 given by the President. During enquiry, it was deposed by the ward

¶50

6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.No.28904 of 2022

¶52

members that the Petitioner refused to sign cheques for the payment of salaries to the employees and also refused to co-operate with the President for discharging the duties and responsibilities as Vice-President. Mrs.Akila the second ward member deposed during enquiry that the Petitioner refused to discharge the duties unless her husband instructs to sign cheques and resolutions. About 10 witnesses were examined including the Petitioner during enquiry on 27.09.2022. All the witnesses except the Petitioner, unanimously stated that the Petitioner is acting only on the instruction of her husband and she is not discharging her duties and responsibilities as Vice-President as contemplated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994.

¶53

7(b).After the recommendation of the Block Development Officer, the 1^st Respondent by his note dated 21.09.2022 directed the Assistant Director of Panchayat to conduct independent enquiry with necessary parties and to file a detailed report. The Assistant Director of Panchayat conducted detailed independent enquiry, the Block Development Officer, Deputy Block Development Officer, President, Vice President, all ward members except 5^th ward member Mari, and Panchayat Secretary were attended the enquiry. After

¶54

7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.P.No.28904 of 2022

¶56

concluding enquiry Assistant Director of Panchayat filed a report on 30.09 2022 before the 1^st Respondent. The 1^st Respondent passed an order dated 06.10.2022 in the interest of the Panchayat administration and for the smooth administration of the same and removed the cheque signing power of the Petitioner herein and permitted Mr.Anbazhagan (Ward Member IV) to sign the cheques and other financial transaction on behalf of the Village Panchayat. Since the Petitioner is not co-operating with the President, a resolution was passed on 13.06.2022 to cancel the cheque signing power of the Petitioner.

¶57

8.From the above, I find that order passed by the 1^st Respondent is only an interim order, the material placed before the Court sufficiently demonstrates the fact that the Petitioner is not co-operating for the smooth functioning and running of the Panchayat and making false allegation. From the statement recorded from the members of the Ward Members, it is highlighted that the Petitioner is acting as a tool in the hands of her husband and refused to sign in the meeting or resolution, unless her husband instructed to do so. Since final orders are yet to be passed by the District Collector, I am not expressing any opinion.

¶58

8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

W.P.No.28904 of 2022

¶60

9.From the typed set of proceedings filed before this Court, it is seen that in the meeting held to pass the resolution, dated 21.09.2022 by the Panchayat, substituting IV Ward Member in the place of Vice President for signing the cheque, even the Petitioner viz., Lakshmi presented and signed in the attendance and left the meeting and hence, contra averments made in the affidavit appears to be false. Since the District Collector is yet to pass final orders on the statement recorded by the Block Development Officer, I am not expressing any opinion and hence, I find that interim measure of suspension of power of the Petitioner viz., cheque signing power, cannot be termed as without any material

¶61

10.Hence, I find that this Petition is devoid of merits. However, it is made clear that on passing of final orders by the District Collector, it is always open to the Petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶62

11.The other contentions raised by the Petitioner is that the final orders

¶63

has been passed under Section 188(3) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. As

¶64

9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

W.P.No.28904 of 2022

¶66

observed above, it is only an interim arrangements for the purpose of passing of bills, for the work done by various civil contractors in the Panchayat, which is for the welfare of the people and hence, the order passed by the first Respondent on 06.10.2021 as indicated above appears to be an interim measurement for the smooth functioning of the Panchayat and hence this Writ Petition is dismissed with the liberty as observed above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶67

24.04.2023

¶68

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order sai

¶69

¶70

1.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶71

2.The Block Development Officer Keezpennathur, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶72

10/11

¶73

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

¶74

W.P.No.28904 of 2022

¶75

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J,

¶76

sai

¶77

Pre-delivery Order made in

¶78

WP.No.28904 of 2022 and WMP.Nos.28198, 28199 of 2022 & 8050 of 2023

¶79

Dated: 24.04.2023

¶80

11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Lakshmi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Lakshmi 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

S.Mukanchand Bothra (Deceased) Vs R.Krishnamurthy @ Kasthoori Raja

Govindasamy Vs Ramamurthy

Srinivasan Vs M/S. Ideal Movers Pvt. Ltd.

Sathuvachari Educational Vs The District Collector

Prabakaran, M/22 Years Vs State Rep.by

R.Balasubramaniam Vs R.Vadivel