K.Ramachandran v. The Govt. Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:15.11.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE W.A.No.2387 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 and 2 of 2012 K.Ramachandran .... Appellant/Petitioner Vs

1. The Govt. of Tamilnadu represented by, Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai-600 009.

2. The District Collector and Inspector of Panchayat,

3. The Additional Director of Panchayat,

4. The Tahsildar, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District. ..Respondent/Respondent Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow this Writ Appeal against the order 12.09.2012 passed in the Writ Petition 24624 of 2012.

W.P. No 24624/2012:

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in his Proceedings dated 16.08.2012 hearing No Na.Ka. No A8/2265/2012 quash the same and direct the 2nd Respondent to drop all further actions pursuant to the show cause notice dated 19.05.2012. For Appellant : Mr.Prasanna Venkat For Respondents : Mr.M.Digvijaya Pandian Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.] The writ petitioner made a challenge to the show cause notice issued under Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 by filing WP No.24624 of 2012 and it was dismissed at the admission stage itself on 12.09.2012 and the petitioner challenging the legality of the same, had filed this Writ Appeal and it was entertained on 09.10.2017 and an interim order of Status quo was granted.

2.

The learned appearing for the appellant would submit that in pursuant to the order of status quo, the appellant/petitioner had completed his tenure as President and therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this Writ Appeal. 3.

This Court heard the submission of Mr.Digvijaya Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 also. He would submit that the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent has also been filed dealing with the material aspect of the matter. 4.

In the light of the above said development, this Court is of the view, the writ appeal is infructuous and accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar rka To

1. The Govt. of Tamilnadu represented by, Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai-600 009.

2. The District Collector and Inspector of Panchayat,

3. The Additional Director of Panchayat,

4. The Tahsildar, Panruti Taluk, +1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 81483.

WA.No.2387 of 2012 VGII(CO) SP(12/12/2017)