V. Sandal Muthuraj v. The District Collector Cum

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:06.03.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.(MD)No.3142 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 V.Sandal Muthuraj ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector cum The Inspector of Panchayats Tirunelveli District.

2.The Tahsildar, Radhapuram Taluk, Taluk Office Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and quash the convening and conduct of the Panchayat Meeting proposed by the Meeting Notice issued by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings No.Aa.2/19401/2014 dated 26.02.2015.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh Alias Ramiah For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, AGP

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and quash the convening and conduct of the Panchayat Meeting proposed by the Meeting Notice issued by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings No.Aa.2/19401/2014 dated 26.02.2015.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 26.02.2015 whereby, the petitioner was called upon to attend the meeting on 10.03.2015 at 11.00 a.m. In fact, the petitioner earlier approached this Court and filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.12409 of 2014, challenging the similar notice issued on 09.12.2014 convening a meeting to be held on 16.12.2014. This Court by an order dated 15.12.2014 allowed the writ petition only on the ground that there was no clear mandate of 7 days gap was given between the notice and the proposed meeting. However, this Court made it clear that allowing of the said writ petition will not preclude the respondents herein from proceeding afresh in the manner known to law and in accordance with law.

3. It appears that the meeting was conducted subsequently on 16.12.2014 itself inspite of the said order passed by this Court. However, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that the decision taken in such meeting was subsequently https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

withdrawn. Consequently, the present impugned notice is issued to the petitioner, which is in accordance with the earlier orders passed by this Court.

4. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is trying to canvass as though the proceedings of the first respondent issued on 05.02.2015 is a composite proceedings and therefore based on such proceedings, the impugned notice cannot be issued, I am not in agreement with the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for the simple reason that what is challenged before this Court is a consequential notice issued, that too, calling upon the petitioner to attend the meeting on 10.03.2015, which in my considered, is in accordance with the earlier orders passed by this court in W.P. (MD)No.12409 of 2014, dated 15.12.2014. Accordingly, I find no merits to interfere.

5. In the result, this Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector cum The Inspector of Panchayats Tirunelveli District.

2.The Tahsildar, Radhapuram Taluk, Taluk Office Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District.

+1cc to MR.S.RAMESH @ RAMIAH, ADVOCATE IN SR : 10853 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, IN SR : 11363 Mpk SR : 19.03.2015 : 2p/5c W.P.(MD)No.3142 of 2015 06.03.2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/