Shanmugathai and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Local Administration Dept, Fort. St. George, Chennai and Another

Shanmugathai and Another vs The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Local Administration Dept, Fort. St. George, Chennai and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Oct 09, 2015

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1179417

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1179417
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: R. Subbiah
Decided On: Oct 09, 2015
Case Number: W.P.(MD) Nos. 13755 & 14478 of 2013 & M.P.(MD). Nos. 1 to 3 of 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shanmugathai and Another

Respondent

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Local Administration Dept, Fort. St. George, Chennai and Another

Excerpt

.....said act. the said provision is extracted here in below: (12) the government shall have power to cancel any notification issued under sub-section (11) and may, pending a decision on such cancellation, postpone the date specified in such notification. ? the said provision has not been exhausted before filing the writ petition. we, therefore, give liberty to the writ petitioner, the first respondent herein, to exhaust the said remedy, if she is so advised, within a fortnight from today....... ? the dictum laid down the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. the present writ petition, challenging the order of removal of the petitioner from the post of president of the village panchayat passed by the 2nd respondent under section 205(11) of the act, is not maintainable before this court. for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed and the interim stay already granted by this court is vacated. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. ? 5. aggrieved over the same, the petitioner therein went on appeal in w.a.(md). no. 938 of 2015. however, the said writ appeal was dismissed by the division bench of this court on 11.09.2015 confirming the order made in w.p.(md).no.955 of 2015. 6. as the facts pleaded in both the writ petitions are akin to the writ petition in w.p.(md).no. 955 of 2015, the writ petitions are also dismissed by holding that the petitioners are directed to approach the government under section 205(12) of the tamil nadu panchayats act. no costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent bearing OO.Ni.No.5/3556/2012 and OO.Ni.No.5/2459/2012 dated 26.07.2013 and the consequential impugned Gazette notification dated 01.08.2013 of the second respondent and quash the same.)

1. The Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent bearing OO.Ni.No.5/3556/2012 and OO.Ni.No.5/2459/2012 dated 26.07.2013 and the consequential impugned Gazette notification dated 01.08.2013 of the second respondent and quash the same. By the said order, the Inspector of Panchayat has removed the petitioners from the post of Panchayat President in respect of Asoor and Kattankulam Village Panchayat, respectively.

2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioners have already been removed from the post of Panchayat President.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not refute the submissions of the learned Government Advocate.

4. In a similar circumstances, this Court had an occasion to consider the issue involved in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.955 of 2015. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, by this Court, on 19.08.2015, wherein, this Court has held as follows:-

10. Now, the 2^nd respondent has passed the final order (impugned order) under Section 205(11) of the Act and the same was also published in the Government Gazette. Even according to the petitioner, he had participated in the personal enquiry and submitted his explanation to the show cause notice. After the dismissal of the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner herein, the impugned order has been passed by the 2^nd respondent, after convening the meeting of the ward members of the panchayat. Now, the matter has attained finality. At this juncture, the petitioner cannot go back and question the notice issued by the 4^th respondent dated 07.07.2014 to convene the meeting of all the ward members of the panchayat with regard to the proposal for removing the petitioner from the post of President of the village panchayat. As contended by the learned Government Advocate, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent, he has to approach the Government under Section 205(12) of the Act. In this regard, a reference could be made in the judgment of this Court reported in (2009) 2 MLJ 1 [Dist.Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayat Vs. S.Senthamizh Selvi], wherein it has been held as follows:-

6. However, against the order which has been passed by the Inspector, the person aggrieved has the right to approach the Government under Section 205(12) of the said Act. The said provision is extracted here in below:

(12) The Government shall have power to cancel any notification issued under sub-section (11) and may, pending a decision on such cancellation, postpone the date specified in such notification. ?

The said provision has not been exhausted before filing the writ petition. We, therefore, give liberty to the writ petitioner, the first respondent herein, to exhaust the said remedy, if she is so advised, within a fortnight from today....... ?

The dictum laid down the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. The present writ petition, challenging the order of removal of the petitioner from the post of President of the village panchayat passed by the 2^nd respondent under Section 205(11) of the Act, is not maintainable before this Court.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed and the interim stay already granted by this Court is vacated. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. ?

5. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner therein went on appeal in W.A.(MD). No. 938 of 2015. However, the said Writ Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.09.2015 confirming the order made in W.P.(MD).No.955 of 2015.

6. As the facts pleaded in both the Writ Petitions are akin to the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No. 955 of 2015, the Writ Petitions are also dismissed by holding that the petitioners are directed to approach the Government under Section 205(12) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2015 Same Parties Shanmugathai and Another vs The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by ... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge R. Subbiah