Full Judgment
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:
06. 08.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.A.(MD).No.653 of 2014 and W.A.(MD).No.662 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2014 M.Ramesh, 1st Ward Member, Kanyakulam Panchayat, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. : Appellant in W.A.[MD]..No.653 of 2014 1.B.Selvakumar, President, Kanyakulam Panchayat, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. : Appellant in W.A.[MD]..No.662 of 2014 Vs. 1.B.Selvakumar, President, Kanyakulam Panchayat, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. 2.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 3.The Block Development Officer, Rajakkamangalam Panchayat Union, Palavilai, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. 4.N.Thanumalaiya Perumal Pillai, Vice President, Kanyakulam Panchayat, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents in W.A.[MD]..No.653 of 2014 1.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2.The Block Development Officer, Rajakkamangalam Panchayat Union, Palavilai, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. 3.N.Thanumalaiya Perumal Pillai, Vice President, Kanyakulam Panchayat, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. 4.M.Ramesh, 1st Ward Member, Kanyakulam Panchayat, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents in W.A.[MD]..No.662 of 2014 PRAYER Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17.04.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.4017 of 2014 on the file of this Court. W.A.[MD]..No.653 of 2014:- !For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar ^For Respondent No.1 : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel For Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondent Nos.2&3 : Mr.C.Selvaraj Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.4 : Ms.L.Victoria Gowri W.A.[MD]..No.662 of 2014:- For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel For Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondent Nos.1&2 : Mr.C.Selvaraj Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.3 : Ms.L.Victoria Gowri For Respondent No.4 : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar :COMMON JUDGMENT
*********************** [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY R.MAHADEVAN, J.
Since common issues are arising for the consideration of this Court, both the Writ Appeals are heard together and a Common Judgment is being passed.
2. These Writ Appeals have been preferred against the order, dated 17.04.2014, made in W.P.(MD).No.4017 of 2014.
3. The above Writ Petition had been filed challenging the order of the District Collector ?. cum Inspector of Panchayats, dated 26.02.2014, whereby and whereunder, the District Collector had granted permission to the Vice President, Kanyakulam Panchayat, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, to sign the cheque as a co-signatory, by divesting the cheque signing power given to the Appellant, in W.A.[MD]..No.653 of 2014. The learned Judge, by order, dated 17.04.2014, had dismissed the said Writ Petition and the same is challenged herein.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in W.A.[MD]..No.662 of 2014, had submitted that the third respondent, being the Vice President of the panchayat, had failed to co-operate with the President for the development of the panchayat, and as he was not co-operating for carrying out the panchayat welfare schemes and the regular works of the Panchayat, the cheque signing power was taken away, as the activities of the panchayat cannot be left to be paralysed. However, by proceedings, dated 26.02.2014, the cheque signing power of the Vice ?. President had been resumed. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that before issuing the said proceedings, no opportunity was given either to the appellants or to the members of the panchayat. The learned Senior Counsel had also submitted that even after revoking the cheque signing power, the third respondent did not attend the meetings of the village panchayats.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in W.A.[MD]..No.653 of 2014 had submitted that the order of the learned Judge cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, [hereinafter referred to as ".the Act".]. gives ample power to delegate cheque signing power to other member of panchayats concerned, after conducting panchayts meetings. In the case on hand, the village Panchayats Committee Meeting had been held and a resolution had been passed, on 29.03.2012. The said resolution had also been forwarded to the District Collector, the Inspector of Panchayats, by the Executive Officer and the District Collector had also approved the same, and thereafter, the cheque signing power had been given to the appellant in W.A.[MD]..No.653 of 2014. However, the District Collector, without issuing notice to the appellant, had taken away the cheque signing power, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
6. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, would contend that the order passed by the District Collector is based on the emergent situation and for the welfare of the public. Further, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that no welfare schemes could be implemented, because of the internal dispute between the president and the vice-president. He would further contend that the Vice President had made various representations, seeking to resume the cheque signing powers. The District Collector, with no other alternative and taking into consideration of all the relevant factors, by his order, dated 26.02.2014, had resumed the cheque signing power of the Vice President, thereby cancelling the cheque signing power given to the appellant in W.A.[MD]..No.653 of 2014, which was rightly upheld by the learned Judge, which warrants no interference at the hands of this Court.
7. We have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully.
8. Even though various grounds have been raised in the Writ Appeals, one of the main grounds raised by the appellants is that no opportunity was given by the District Collector and no proper enquiry was conducted, before passing the order, dated 26.02.2014, resuming the cheque signing power of the Vice President and cancelling the cheque signing power of the appellant in W.A.[MD]..No.653 of 2014.
9. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to Section 202(2) of the Act, which reads as follows:- ".The Inspector shall, before taking action on any of the grounds referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), give the authority or person concerned an opportunity for explanation.". A plain reading of Section 202(2) of the Act would spell out a clear meaning that after affording an opportunity, by issuing show cause notice to the President/Vice President, if the transfer of cheque signing power is made, no infirmity could be found. But, in the instant case, a reference to the impugned order, dated 26.02.2014, would go to show that no opportunity whatsoever was given to the parties concerned, before issuing the impugned order.
10. In the case on hand, there are allegations as well as counter allegations by the president and the vice-president. In view of the dispute between the president and the vice-president, the routine functions of the panchayat should not be hampered. It is also important to lay down here that the president and the vice-president, who are elected by the public only to serve them, must set aside all their personal and political adversaries and ideologies and work for the betterment of the panchayat and the public.
11. In such view of the matter, the order of the learned Judge, dated 17.04.2014, made in W.P.(MD).No.4017 of 2014, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Collector ?. cum ?. Inspector of Panchayats, who shall issue notice to all the parties concerned, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, hear their objections, and thereafter, pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law.
12. The Writ Appeals are allowed, as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. [M.J.J.,]. & [R.M.D.,J]. 06.08.2014 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No NB To 1.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2.The Block Development Officer, Rajakkamangalam Panchayat Union, Palavilai, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. M.JAICHANDREN, J.
AND R.MAHADEVAN, J.
NB COMMON JUDGMENT
MADE IN W.A.(MD).Nos.653 and 662 of 2014 06.08.2014