Disposed

P.Ayipalayam Panchayat v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC21 Dec 2024WP/39536/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions filed by gram panchayats apprehending merger with a town panchayat. The Court directed the authorities to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and address their grievances before taking a considered decision on merger in accordance with rules and guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Directing authorities to provide hearing and decide in accordance with rules.

P.Ayipalayam Panchayat Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.No.39536 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.42821 of 2024

¶7

1.P.Ayipalayam Panchayat, Rep. by its President, Mrs.P.Devi W/o.Perumal P.Ayipalayam, Melkalpalayam (Post) Rasipuram Circle, Namakkal District – 637 403.

¶8

2.Ponkuratchi Panchayat, Rep. by its President, Mr.K.Somasundaram Ponkurtchi, Melkalpalayam (Post Office) Rasipuram Circle, Namakkal District – 637 403.

¶9

3.Koomarapalayam Panchayat, Rep. by its President, Mr.M.Raja 85.R.Koomaraplayam (Post Office) Rasipuram Circle, Namakkal District – 637 403.

¶10

4.Kunavellampatti Panchayat, Rep. by its President, Mrs.A.Shanthi Kunavellampatti Puthur (Post Office) Rasipuram Circle, Namakkal District – 637 403.

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

5.Kurukkapuram Panchayat, Rep. by its President, Mr.P.Govindaraj, Kurukkapuram (Post Office) Rasipuram Circle, Namakkal District – 637 403.

¶14

.. Petitioners

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1.State of Tamil Nadu By its Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶17

2.State of Tamil Nadu, By its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶18

3.State of Tamil Nadu, By its District Collector, District Collector Office, Namakkal District, Namakkal 637 03.

¶19

4.The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Rajendra Chatram, Leigh Bazaar Road, Arisipalayam, Salem, Tamil Ndu – 636 009.

¶20

5.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Rasipuram Panchayat Union, Rasipuram – 637 408.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

6.The Executive Officer, Pillanallur Town Panchayat, Pillanallur Post, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal 637 403 .. Respondents

¶24

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from in any way taking steps to merge the petitioner panchayats with Pillanallur Town Panchayat contrary to the provisions of Tamilnadu Urban Local Bodies Act 1988, G.O.131 dated 16.03.2007 and contrary to the resolution passed by the Petitioner Panchayats in the Grama Sabha meeting

¶25

For Petitioner .. Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan for M/s.TVJ Associates For Respondents .. Mr.N.Naveen Kumar Government Advocate for R1 to R4 Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate for R5 & R6

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This writ petition has been filed by the Panchayats on the apprehension that the petitioner Panchayats would be merged with Pillanallur Town Panchayat.

¶28

2.It is contended that such merger would be contrary to the provisions of Tamilnadu Urban Local Bodies Act 1988. It is also contended that such merger would

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

be contrary to the resolution passed by the petitioner Panchayats in the Grama Sabha meeting. However, the writ petition has been filed only on apprehension that the panchayats would be merged with the Pillanallur Town Panchayat. If at all a policy decision has been taken to merge the panchayat with the Pillanallur Town Panchayat, then necessary formalities, rules and guidelines which are required would certainly be followed. It is not a case where the panchayats would just be wished away and then they would be merged with the Pillanallur Town Panchayat. The respondents may give adequate opportunity to the petitioners to be heard. Their grievances should be addressed and thereafter a considered decision must be taken in accordance with rules and guidelines.

¶32

3.This writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

21.12.2024 (2/4)

¶34

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes/No ssr

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

¶38

1.The Secretary,

¶39

Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George,

¶40

Chennai – 600 009.

¶41

2.The Secretary,

¶42

Municipal Administration and Water Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George,

¶43

Chennai – 600 009.

¶44

3.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Namakkal District, Namakkal 637 03.

¶45

4.The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Rajendra Chatram, Leigh Bazaar Road, Arisipalayam, Salem,

¶46

Tamil Ndu – 636 009.

¶47

5.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Rasipuram Panchayat Union, Rasipuram – 637 408.

¶48

6.The Executive Officer,

¶49

Pillanallur Town Panchayat, Pillanallur Post, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal 637 403.

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

¶53

ssr

¶54

W.P.No.39536 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.42821 of 2024

¶55

21.12.2024 (2/4)

¶56

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

P.Ayipalayam Panchayat v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ayipalayam Panchayat v. the State of Tamilnadu

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.J.Mansoor Ali Vs The General Manager (P - Iii)

B.Ramkumar Adityan Vs M/S.Ybm Travels Private Limited

M/s.Maason Enterprises Vs The Managing Director

Anaipalayam Panchayat Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P.Ayipalayam Panchayat Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Anaipalayam Panchayat Vs the State of Tamilnadu