Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Jul 26, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1189595

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/1189595
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: T. Raja
Decided On: Jul 26, 2016
Case Number: W.P (MD).No. 13102 of 2016 & W.M.P.(MD).No.9880 of 2016
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

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

Constitution

Key legal issue: Constitution

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

t. raja, j. 1. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order, dated 06.07.2016, calling upon the members of the ward members of the village panchayat to attend a meeting to find out the views of the elected members in respect of the irregularities done by the petitioner is liable to be interfered with by this court, on the sole ground that as per section 205 (4) of the tamil nadu panchayats act, (in short 'the act') there must be seven days clear notice to be given to the village panchayat president concerned. in the present case, notice dated 06.07.2016 was served on the petitioner only on 08.07.2016 and a meeting was fixed on 14.07.2016 without giving seven days clear notice to the petitioner. in other words, the respondents have failed to comply with the act. 2. per contra, the learned government advocate submitted that this writ petition has become infructuous, as the meeting as scheduled was held on the 14.07.2016. 3. having served the notice only on 08.07.2016, it is not proper on the part of the respondents to proceed further without complying with the provisions of section 205 (4) of the tamil nadu panchayats act. 4. in view of the above, notice through court as well as privately returnable by 24.08.2016. in the mean time, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo. further, the respondents are directed to file counter by 24.08.2016.

Full Judgment

T. Raja, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order, dated 06.07.2016, calling upon the Members of the Ward Members of the Village Panchayat to attend a Meeting to find out the views of the Elected Members in respect of the irregularities done by the petitioner is liable to be interfered with by this Court, on the sole ground that as per Section 205 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, (in short 'the Act') there must be seven days clear notice to be given to the Village Panchayat President concerned. In the present case, notice dated 06.07.2016 was served on the petitioner only on 08.07.2016 and a Meeting was fixed on 14.07.2016 without giving seven days clear notice to the petitioner. In other words, the respondents have failed to comply with the Act.

2. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that this Writ Petition has become infructuous, as the Meeting as scheduled was held on the 14.07.2016.

3. Having served the notice only on 08.07.2016, it is not proper on the part of the respondents to proceed further without complying with the provisions of Section 205 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act.

4. In view of the above, notice through Court as well as privately returnable by 24.08.2016. In the mean time, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo. Further, the respondents are directed to file counter by 24.08.2016.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject Constitution Same Judge T. Raja