V. Sandal Muthuraj v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.04.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURBLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P(MD). Nos. 13501 of 2013 and 13630 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 of 2013 and 1 of 2015 V.Sandal Muthuraj ...

Petitioner in both wps.

Versus

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

2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats (Village Panchayats) Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

3.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats) Radhapuram Panchayat Union, Tirunelveli District.

4.Smt.Murugamma ...

Respondents in WP 13501 of 2013 1.The District Collector, cum The Inspector of Panchayats, Tirunelveli District.

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

3.S.Bagavathy ...R3 impleaded vide Court order dt.05.08.2015 in MP.2/15 4.V.Perumal samy 5.P.Krishnan 6.T.Vadivoo 7.E.Pechiammal 8.P.Selvakumar 9.P.Saraswathi 10.A.Selvamani 11.S.Murugan

12.P.Rajalingam 13.A.Kumar ... Respondents in WP 13630 of 2015 (R4 to 13 are impleaded vide Court order dt.17.03.2016 in WMP(MD). No.4862/16 Prayer in W.P (MD) No.13501 of 2013 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings in A.6/3168/2013 dated 09.07.2013, and quash the same.

Prayer in W.P (MD) No.13630 of 2015 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the proceedings of the Panchayat Meeting allegedly held on 10.03.2015 by the Tashildar, Radhapuram and the order of the District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Tirunelveli District vide his proceedings No.A.6/3168/2013 dated 15.07.2015 [Served on me on 25.07.2015] and the consequent Notification in the District Gazette vide No.155 and Proceedings No.VI (2) 121(a) 2015 dated 23.07.2015 [served on the petitioner on 25.07.2015], Removing the petitioner from the Post of President of Kudankulam Panchayat. For petitioner in both Wps :

Mr. S. Ramesh Alias Ramiah For respondents in W.P(MD)No.13501 of 2013 :

Mr. N.S. Karthikeyan A.G.P for R1 and R2 Mr. B. Pugalendhi, Special Govt. Pleader for R3 Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy for R4 For respondents in W.P(MD)No.13630 of 2015 :

Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.S.Arulraj for R3 Mr.H.Thayumanasamy for R4 to R13 COMMON ORDER In view of the fact that the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2.

The petitioner was functioning as President of the Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. During the course of such Presidentship, for certain alleged irregularities committed by the

petitioner, the District Collector, Tirunelveli has passed an order dated 09.07.2013 withdrawing the cheque signing power given to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the first writ petition namely WP (MD) No. 13501 of 2013. Subsequently, by the order dated 15.07.2015 of the District Collector, Tirunelveli, the petitioner was removed from the post of President. This order is challenged in WP (MD) No. 13630 of 2015 by the petitioner.

The order dated 15.07.2015 was passed after a meeting was convened by the Tahsildar, Radhapuram Taluk on 10.03.2015 in the presence of the all the members of the Village Panchayat including the District Collector, Tirunelveli. The said order was also published in the District Gazzette on 23.07.2015 indicating that the petitioner has been removed from the post of President.

3.

Earlier, the petitioner has filed WP (MD) No. 3142 of 2015 challenging the convening of the meeting on 10.03.2015 and that was dismissed by this Court on 06.03.2015. Yet another writ petition in WP No. 12353 of 2015 was filed by the Vice-President of the Panchayat seeking to take immediate action against the petitioner by considering his representation in which an order was passed by this Court to take appropriate action on the representation of the Vice-President. Thereafter, the meeting was convened on 10.03.2015 in which a decision was taken to remove the petitioner from the post of President. In the meeting, all the members have participated and their views were ascertained and prominently recorded by the Tahsildar, Radhapuram Taluk. The minutes of the meeting so recorded were forwarded to the District Collector based on which the order of removal came to be passed against the petitioner.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order of removal was passed without notice to the petitioner and it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further stated that the fourth respondent in WP No. 13501 of 2013 is none other than the wife of one of the Panchayat Members and she constructed a Gas Godown without obtaining prior permission of the Panchayat. The fourth respondent also obtained no Objection for the construction of the Gas Godown from the District Collector on 14.12.2012. When the petitioner demanded for obtaining prior permission, as per the norms, they have exhibited rude behaviour towards the petitioner and acted enemical towards him.

Further, during the strike against the setting up of the Kudankulam Power Project, the petitioner supported the cause of the Government which was not to the likening of the Villagers. Therefore, false complaints were given against the petitioner, based on which, the District Collector passed an order dated 09.07.2013 withdrawing the cheque signing power given to the petitioner, which was subjected to challenge by the petitioner before this Court.

every stage, the petitioner was made to approach this Court in view of the arbitrary action initiated against him. As far as the present petition is concerned, a meeting was convened behind the back of the petitioner without even giving notice to him. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for allowing the writ petitions.

5.

Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents in WP No. 13501 of 2013 as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents in WP (MD) No. 13630 of 2015 would oppose the writ petitions by relying upon the counter affidavits filed by the official respondents. According to the respondents, the District Collector received complaints relating to mismanagement of the Village Panchayat funds and therefore, he directed the Tahsildar, Radhapuram to conduct a special audit for the period from 01.10.2012 to 16.06.2013. During the course of audit, it came to light that the petitioner indulged in serious malpractices and irregularities in handling the funds of the panchayat. A show cause notice dated 16.10.

2014 was therefore issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. The second respondent thereafter proceeded to conduct a meeting on 15.02.2015 to ascertain the views of the members of the Panchayat for removing the petitioner from the post of President. Aggrieved by the notice, the petitioner filed WP (MD) No. 20409 of 2014 before this Court and it was allowed on 15.02.2015 giving liberty to the respondents 1 and 2 therein to proceed in the matter afresh after following all the procedures contemplated under law. Thereafter, when the second respondent issued a notice for convening the meeting on 10.03.2015, the petitioner once again filed WP (MD) No. 3142 of 2015 challenging the convening of the meeting and it was dismissed by this Court on 06.03.2015. Thereafter, the meeting was convened on 10.03.

2015 in which members of the Panchayat have unanimously resolved to remove the petitioner from the post of President for having committed alleged irregularities. It is further stated that as against the order of removal passed by the District Collector, in terms of Section 205 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Act, an appeal remedy is provided under Section 205 (12) of the said Act. Therefore, the writ petition No.13630 of 2015 is not maintainable and they prayed for dismissal of both the writ petitions.

6.

The Vice President/third respondent in WP (MD) No. 13830 of 2015 has filed a separate counter affidavit contending that the meeting held on 10.03.2015 was valid in law in which the Tahsildar has ascertained the views of all the members and thereafter, passed the order of removal came to be passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has failed in his duty as a President in terms of Sections 46 and 84 of the Act. In the interest of the Village Panchayat as a whole, the Inspector/District Collector has

removed the Petitioner from the post of President after following all the procedures contemplated under the Act and therefore he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7.

I heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record. It is seen from the records that the District Collector, on the basis of complaints received against the petitioner, has directed to conduct an audit of the funds of the Village Panchayat for the period from 01.10.2012 to 16.06.2013 and the audit report reveals that the petitioner misappropriated the funds of the Panchayat on various heads. A show cause notice dated 16.10.2014 was also sent to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation to the audit report. As the explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfactory, a meeting was ordered to be convened on 05.01.2015 to ascertain the views of the members of the Village Panchayat as regards the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed WP (MD) No. 20409 of 2014 and this Court interfered with the conduct of meeting on the ground that it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the respondents therein were directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Pursuant to such direction, a notice dated 26.02.2015 was issued for convening a meeting on 10.03.2015. This was also challenged by the petitioner by filing WP (MD) No. 3142 of 2015 and it was dismissed by this Court on 06.03.2015. Thereafter, a meeting was ordered to be convened on 10.03.2015 for which notice was duly issued to the petitioner. However, for the reasons best known, the petitioner did not attend the meeting. In the meeting convened on 10.03.

2015, the members of the Panchayat have expressed their views for removing the petitioner from the post of President for certain alleged irregularities. This Court, in this writ petition, cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of those allegations. In these writ petitions, this Court has to consider whether the meeting dated 10.03.2015 was properly convened.

8.

As mentioned above, the meeting was convened on 10.03.2015 after duly serving a notice on the petitioner, but he has not chosen to attend the meeting. The minutes of the meeting was properly recorded by the Tahsildar, Radhapuram in which the views expressed the members were incorporated. When the petitioner did not even participate in the meeting after receipt of the notice for the meeting to be convened on 10.03.2015, this Court cannot interfere with the manner in which the meeting was conducted, as alleged by the petitioner. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he has not received the notice for the meeting on 10.03.2015. On the basis of the report of the meeting held on 10.03.2015, the District Collector has passed the order of removal and it does not call for interference by this Court. In any event, it cannot be contended by the petitioner that the

meeting has been convened in violation of principles of natural justice.

9.

Yet another point for consideration in WP (MD) No. 13630 of 2015 is that as against an order of removal an appeal remedy is provided under Section 205 (12) of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Act before the Government. When such an alternative remedy is provided under the Act, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as against the order of removal passed by the District Collector. Therefore, the writ petition No. 13630 of 2015 is not maintainable.

10. In view of the above, WP (MD) No. 13630 of 2015 is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of WP (MD) No. 13630 of 2015, the relief sought for in WP (MD) No. 13501 of 2013 need not be granted. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T & P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, cum The Inspector of Panchayats, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats (Village Panchayats) Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

3.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats) Radhapuram Panchayat Union, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Tashildar Radhapuram Taluk, Taluk Office Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District. +1cc to Mr.S.ARUN RAJ,Advocate Sr.No.24321 +1cc to Mr.H.THAYUMANASAMY,Advocate Sr.No.24320 +1cc to Mr.RAMESH @ RAMIAH,Advocate Sr.No.24104 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.24190 SRM/RSH AA/NGM-MP/SAR-II/06.07.2016/6p-9c WP (MD).Nos.13501 of 2013 WP (MD) No. 13630 of 2015 26.04.2016