K. Valarmathi vs The District Collector. Coimbatore District, Coimbatore - 641 018, The Assistant Director (Panchayat), Collectorate. Coimbatore -641 018, The Block Development Officer (Panchayat), Perianaickenpalayam, Coimbatore-641 020 and P.V. Mani

D. Murugesan, J.—The petitioner is the Vice President of the Kurudampalayam Panchayat. Perianaickenpalayam Union. Coimbatore North District. By the impugned order, the cheque signing power of the Vice President, the Petitioner has been taken away by the District Collector, the first respondent.

The said order came to be passed on the ground that the Panchayat resolved for withdrawal of cheque signing power of the Vice President on 27.12.004 and the resolution of the Panchayat was communicated to the District Collector, who accepted the same for passing the impugned order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District Collector did not issue any notice and give an opportunity to the petitioner but passed the impugned order violating the principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order is liable to set aside.

It is also questioned that the District Collector has mechanically passed the order on the basis of the report of the Block Development Officer and without independent application of mind to the fact that whether the petitioner had refused to sign cheques and thereby did not co-operate with the President.

As the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Pugazhendran President, Brammapuram Village Panchayat, Katpadi Panchayat Union Vs. B.G. Balu, The District Collector, (Inspector of Panchayats) and The Government of Tamil Nadu, ), in support of the above ontentions, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing and is disposed of by this order.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the fourth respondent and Mr. Suresh Viswanath, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that cheque signing power of the Vice President has been withdrawn on the basis of the report of the Block Development Officer.

A resolution was passed by the Panchayat withdrawing the power of signing cheques from the petitioner on 27.12.2004. The said resolution was communicated to the Block Development Officer on the same day. The Block Development Officer also communicated the resolution on the same day to the District Collector, who passed the impugned order on 31.12.2004 within a period of live days.

No material is produced by the first respondent to contend that he gave notice to the petitioner, after receiving the report in respect of the resolution from the Block Development Officer, as to the resolution. In the absence of production of such material and by the fact that the impugned order has been passed solely on the report of the Block Development Officer. I am of the considered view that the above judgment of the Division Bench is squarely applicable to the facts of this case.

In para-29 of the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:

In the present case a perusal of the order of the District Collector. Vellore (Inspector of Panchayats. Vellore) dated 7.11.2002 cancelling the power of the Vice President to sign the Panchayats cheques as joint signatory, shows that the District Collector has merely acted on the recommendation of the Block Development Officer. Katpadi Panchayat Union, and he has not applied his mind independently to the fads of the ease, and he has not come to any independent con-elusion that the refusal to sign cheques by the Vice President was mala tide or for ulterior motives. The District Collector, Vellore, without issuing notice to the petitioner, appears to have mechanically accepted the report of the Block Development Officer. Katpadi Panchayat Union, which in our opinion was not proper.

As per the Division Bench judgment, before passing an order cancelling the power of the Vice President to sign cheques as joint signatory, the District Collector has to issue notice to the Vice President and has to apply his mind independently as to the allegations on which the decision of withdrawal of cheque signing power is to be taken. In the absence of affording of such an opportunity, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

In view of the above judgment. I am of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the same has been passed without notice to the petitioner to explain her stand.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of the first respondent. The District Collector shall pass orders as to the withdrawal of the cheque signing power of the Vice President, alter giving notice to the petitioner and considering the explanation of the petitioner to the notice, if any. and also the report of the Block Development Officer, with an independent application of mind within four weeks from today.

It is made clear that the Writ Petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the withdrawal of the cheque signing power of the Vice President. In result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Connected W.P.M.P, and W.V.M.P, are closed.