The Court declined to entertain the writ petition filed under Article 226 at the notice stage. The petition was rather adjourned for two weeks to give the petitioner an opportunity to file an explanation.
Writ petition disposed of; petitioner given two weeks to submit explanation; Second Respondent directed to consider the matter on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.482 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.482 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.441 of 2023
Ariyanendal Village Panchayat, Represented by its President, K.Manimuthu.
... Petitioner
Vs.
4.G.Prema
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in Na.Ka.Vu.Ni.6/5635/2022 dated 26.12.2022 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and
1/4
W.P(MD)No.482 of 2023
consequently for a direction, forbearing the respondent No.2 from initiating
action under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
Spl. Government Pleader for R1 & R2. Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh for R3.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Special
Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3.
2.I decline to entertain the writ petition only for the reason that the petitioner has come to this Court at the notice stage. The petitioner is given two more weeks to offer their explanation from today. The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass order on merits and in accordance with law. I make it clear that the second respondent shall consider the issue with an independent frame of mind. All the contentions of the writ petitioner are left open.
2/4
W.P(MD)No.482 of 2023
3.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.01.2023
NCS :Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias Issue order copy 09.01.2023.
To:
1.The Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai – 15.
W.P(MD)No.482 of 2023
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.482 of 2023
09.01.2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be entertained at the notice stage and if the petitioner is given time to offer explanation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ariyanendal Village Panchayat
Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai
District Collector / Inspector of Panchayat, Ramanathapuram
Block Development Officer
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
