Madras High CourtWP/4230/2023dismissed

G.Malar v. The District Collector And The Inspector Of Panchayaths

2023-02-14Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and W.M.P.No.4266 of 2023 G.Malar

...Petitioner

Versus

1. The District Collector and the Inspector of Panchayat Kallakurichi District Collectorate Kesavalu Nagar, VOC Nagar Kallakurichi Post Kallakurichi District - 606 202 2.Block Development Officer(Village Panchayat) Tirukoilur Panchayat Union Tirukoilur Post Tirukoilur Taluk Kallakurichi District - 605 757 3.The Thasildar Office of the Thasildar Tirukoilur Taluk Kallakurichi District - 605 757

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Page 1 / 6

impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent in his proceedings initiated under section 205 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayaths Act, 1994 vide Na.Ka.No.A2/3012/2022-I Dated: /01/2023 and quash the same on the ground of it being arbitrary irrational illegal and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to forbear the 3rd respondent from convening the meeting for ascertaining the view of the village panchayath. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar for R1 & 3 Government Advocate Mr.B.Tamil Nidhi for R2 Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the notice issued by the 1st respondent in his proceedings initiated under section 205 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayaths Act, 1994 vide Na.Ka.No.A2/3012/2022-I Dated: /01/2023 and quash the same on the ground of it being arbitrary irrational illegal and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to forbear the 3rd respondent from convening the meeting for ascertaining the view of the village panchayath. Page 2 / 6

2. The challenge is made to the above notice on the ground that the explanation sought has not been considered by the District Collector and without considering his explanation and assigning any reasons, the notice has been issued to the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry as contemplated under Section 205 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayaths Act, 1994. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notice has to be quashed. He also placed reliance on the order of this Court in the case of M.Selvarani Vs. The Inspector of Panchayat/District Collector and others made in W.P.No.10157 of 2022.

3. The petitioner was selected as a Village Panchayat President of Chozhavaandiyapuram Village, Tirukovilur Taluk, Kallakurichi District. The petitioner was charged with 14 charges with respect to certain irregularities by the District Collector and explanation was sought by the District Collector with respect to the above charges. According to the petitioner, he has given a detailed explanation, however, the District Collector has not considered his explanation and forwarded the impugned order to the Tahsildar to conduct the proceedings as per Section 205(3) of the Act. Hence, the same has been challenged. Page 3 / 6

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. Though this Court in one of the writ petition as referred above has held that the petitioner has not been intimated the reasons for rejecting the explanation by the District Collector. Without furnishing the reasons, the District Collector has referred the matter to the Tahsildar. Therefore, quashed the notice.

5. This Court is of the firm opinion that what is required under the statute is only forming opinion of the District Collector that too accepting the explanation or rejecting the explanation. When the District Collector has indicated in his Order that he is not satisfied with the explanations submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, he proceeded to take action as per law. It cannot be said that explanation has not at all been considered, when the District Collector has formed opinion and indicated in his order that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not acceptable. Therefore, he has forwarded the charges to the Tahsildar to conduct the meeting as contemplated under 205(3). Section 205(3) does not require reasons rejecting the explanations to be furnished before taking any action. The explanation has been considered by the District Collector on subjective assessment.

Page 4 / 6

6. Such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this case and this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

14.02.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No dhk To

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

dhk Order in:

14.02.2023 Page 6 / 6