Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

S.Devasena vs the State of Tamilnadu

S.Devasena vs The State of Tamilnadu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 06, 2025
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1725287

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/3698/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S.Devasena

Respondent

The State of Tamilnadu

Excerpt

.....president of sedappalayam panchayat, due to political difference, the vice president was refused to sign the cheques as joint signatory with the president. thereafter, the district collector passed anorder dated 02.05.2024 invoking his powers under section 203 of thetamil nadu panchayats act, giving the cheque signing power to the block development officer and special officer/deputy development officer. in the mean time, the ward members resolved their differences and agreed to co-operate with each other. thereafter, the petitioner sent several representations were made to the district collector to permit the president and the vice president to sign the cheques but no order has been by the district collector. the join signatories also did not settle the pending bills to the tune of rs.26,00,000/-. in the mean time, the tenure of the elected body expired in december 2024. however, the fourth and fifth respondents have not settled the bills. hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.4. the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given a representation dated 06.01.2025 to thepage no.3 of 6 district collector to instruct the fourth and fifth respondents to make payment of bills for sedapalayam panchayat to work done by the respective contract.5. the learned additional government pleader appearing for therespondents 1 to 3 submitted that the tenure of a chairman of the panchayat is over, the special officer has been appointed on 06.01.2025 by the government. therefore, he does not have locus standi to maintain the present petition, he further submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 06.01.2025 will be considered on merits, in accordance with law by the second respondent, within a time frame may be fixed by this court.6. heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on records.7. in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.02.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD S.Devasena ... Petitioner vs.

1. The State of Tamil nadu, rep.by Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

2. The Inspector of Panchayat/ The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

3. The Additional Collector, Cuddalore District, District Rural Development Office, 4.The Block Development Officer,

5. The Special Officer/Deputy Block Development Officer, Sedappalayam Panchayat, Chinnakaraikadu, Caper Quarry Post, Cuddalore 607 005. .. Respondents

Page No.1 of 6 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent District Collector to instruct respondents 4 and 5 to make payments forthwith for the pending bills in Sedappalayam Panchayat, Cuddalore District as per the representation of the petitioner the last of which was on 06.01.2025. For Petitioner : M/s.Hema Sampath Senior Counsel for M/s.R.Meenal For R1 to R5 : Mr.M.Rajendiran Addl.Govt.Pleader

ORDER

By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the admission stage itself.

2. The present writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of

mandamus directing the second respondent District Collector to instruct respondents 4 and 5 to make payments forthwith for the pending bills in Sedappalayam Panchayat, Cuddalore District dated 06.01.2025 . Page No.2 of 6

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was elected in December

2019 as President of Sedappalayam Panchayat, Due to political difference, the Vice President was refused to sign the cheques as joint signatory with the President. Thereafter, the District Collector passed an

order dated 02.05.2024 invoking his powers under Section 203 of the

Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, giving the cheque signing power to the Block Development Officer and Special Officer/Deputy Development Officer. In the mean time, the ward members resolved their differences and agreed to co-operate with each other. Thereafter, the petitioner sent several representations were made to the District Collector to permit the President and the Vice President to sign the cheques but no order has been by the District Collector. The join signatories also did not settle the pending bills to the tune of Rs.26,00,000/-. In the mean time, the tenure of the elected body expired in December 2024. However, the fourth and fifth respondents have not settled the bills. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given a representation dated 06.01.2025 to the

Page No.3 of 6 District Collector to instruct the fourth and fifth respondents to make payment of bills for Sedapalayam Panchayat to work done by the respective contract.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the tenure of a chairman of the Panchayat is over, the Special Officer has been appointed on 06.01.2025 by the Government. Therefore, he does not have locus standi to maintain the present petition, He further submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 06.01.2025 will be considered on merits, in accordance with law by the second respondent, within a time frame may be fixed by this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on records.

7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.01.2025 on merits, in accordance with law and Page No.4 of 6 pass appropriate orders , within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. This writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs. 06.02.2025 Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. Neutral Citation : Yes/No

Speaking : Non-speaking Order

kkd To

1. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

2. The Inspector of Panchayat/ The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

3. The Additional Collector, Cuddalore District, District Rural Development Office, 5.The Block Development Officer, Page No.5 of 6

J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.

kkd

5. The Special Officer/Deputy Block Development Officer, Sedappalayam Panchayat, Chinnakaraikadu, Caper Quarry Post, Cuddalore 607 005. 06.02.2025 Page No.6 of 6

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial