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.

G.Senthilkumar Vs. the District Collector

G.Senthilkumar vs The District Collector

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 11, 2011
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/922933

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
Writ Petition (MD)No.8066 of 2009
Subject
Panchayat

Case Summary

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

Panchayat

Key legal issue
Panchayat
Acts & sections
Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 - Section 202

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

G.Senthilkumar

Respondent

The District Collector

Legal References

Acts
Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 - Section 202

Excerpt

.....petitioner, thereafter, sent a representation to the district collector, ramanathapuram by representation dated 28.05.2008. in the meanwhile, another person by name, s.viswanathan, the fourth respondent was appointed as panchayat assistant and this fact was also mentioned in his representation. thereafter, the petitioner has sent another representation to the block development officer, utchipuli for the very same reason on 28.05.2008. the said authority informed the petitioner that as earlier writ petition was dismissed and therefore, his matter cannot be dealt with by him since the executive authority of the panchayat is only the president of the panchayat and he may approach the said authority. accordingly, the petitioner sent another representation, dated 16.06.2008 to the third respondent asking him to reconsider his decision in appointing the fourth respondent and after sending the said representation within two months, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to consider his representation, dated 16.06.2008. 3.when the matter came up on 18.08.2009, notice of motion was ordered. on behalf of the respondents, mr.r.manoharan, learned government advocate appears. learned counsel states that there is nothing that the third respondent in doing in this matter. the earlier round of litigation went against the petitioner only liberty was given to move the appellate authority and that he is not the appellate authority. 4.the stand taken by the third respondent is well founded since as against any decision under section 202 of the tamil nadu panchayats act, 1994 provides power of the inspector of panchayats (district collector) of the respect districts to suspend or cancel any resolution passed or order issued by the panchayat, such order has not been legally passed. 5.though the petitioner had originally sent a representation to the district collector, a copy of which found enclosed in page nos.11 and 12 of the typed set. instead of.....

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner is a Panchayat Assistant working in the third respondent panchayat. Aggrieved by the action by the third respondent in refusing to permit the petitioner to work as Panchayat Assistant, he filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.4974 of 2007. That writ petition came to be dismissed by a reasoned order, dated 16.04.2008. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court held that since the petitioner is asserting that he has a requisite qualification for holding the post of Panchayat Assistant and this Court having found that there is a dispute regarding the petitioner's qualification gave liberty to the petitioner to move the appellate authority since the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner as against his non employment. The writ petition was dismissed but the liberty to move the appellate authority was preserved.

2.The petitioner, thereafter, sent a representation to the District Collector, Ramanathapuram by representation dated 28.05.2008. In the meanwhile, another person by name, S.Viswanathan, the fourth respondent was appointed as Panchayat Assistant and this fact was also mentioned in his representation. Thereafter, the petitioner has sent another representation to the Block Development Officer, Utchipuli for the very same reason on 28.05.2008. The said authority informed the petitioner that as earlier writ petition was dismissed and therefore, his matter cannot be dealt with by him since the executive authority of the panchayat is only the President of the Panchayat and he may approach the said authority. Accordingly, the petitioner sent another representation, dated 16.06.2008 to the third respondent asking him to reconsider his decision in appointing the fourth respondent and after sending the said representation within two months, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to consider his representation, dated 16.06.2008.

3.When the matter came up on 18.08.2009, notice of motion was ordered. On behalf of the respondents, Mr.R.Manoharan, learned Government Advocate appears. Learned counsel states that there is nothing that the third respondent in doing in this matter. The earlier round of litigation went against the petitioner only liberty was given to move the appellate authority and that he is not the appellate authority.

4.The stand taken by the third respondent is well founded since as against any decision under Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 provides power of the Inspector of Panchayats (District Collector) of the respect Districts to suspend or cancel any resolution passed or order issued by the panchayat, such order has not been legally passed.

5.Though the petitioner had originally sent a representation to the District Collector, a copy of which found enclosed in page Nos.11 and 12 of the typed set. Instead of asking for direction to dispose of that representation, the petitioner has asked for disposal of the representation sent to the third respondent who is not willing to consider the same in the absence of any enabling provision. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner has not utilised the liberty given by this Court in the earlier occasion. However, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has not prayed for disposal of the representation sent to the first respondent, dated 28.05.2008, this Court is inclined to direct the first respondent, the District Collector to dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 28.05.2008 in accordance with law and communicate the result to the petitioner without fail. Since the said representation is already three years old, the petitioner is directed to make a copy of the said representation along with the enclosures as well as the present order. If such action taken by the petitioner, the first respondent District Collector is directed to consider that representation in accordance with the direction issued by this Court.

6.With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial