AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—By consent of all the parties main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Aggrieved by the order of the Government
in G.O.Ms. No. 32 Rural Development (C1) Department dated 17-4-2003, removing the petitioner from the post of Chairman, Panchayat Union
Council, Sendurai, Perambalur District, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and consequently direct the first
respondent-Government to reinstate him as Chairman, Sendurai Panchayat Union Council.
The case of the petitioner is briefly state hereunder:
According to him, he was elected as Chairman of Sendurai Panchayat Union Council on 31-10-2001. A written notice of intention to make a
motion expressing want of confidence in him was delivered to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam. Subsequently a meeting was
convened on 10-12-2002. In the meanwhile, he filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 41401/2002 assailing the amendment made in Section 212 of the
Panchayats Act and the same has been admitted by this Court. The proceedings removing him from the post of Chairman were fully video taped.
Prescribed statutory procedures were not followed. The motion laid against him was defeated. This was duly announced by the Revenue Divisional
Officer. Thereafter, the vested interests who were against him instigated a pandemonium and in the process the no confidence motion was put to
vote for the second time. This is illegal and against all principles of democracy. The papers had since been forwarded to the Secretary to
Government. He had lodged complaint stating that there was double voting. Since he apprehended that he may not be allowed to prove this
allegation, he filed Writ Petition No. 3490/2003 before this Court and this Court directed the first respondent-Government to give him an
opportunity of hearing on 17-2-2003. He appeared in person and produced the video tapes. It could clearly be seen that there was twice voting
and that in the first round the motion was defeated. Yet the first respondent had issued the impugned G.O. without even considering or adverting to
his objections In these circumstances, in the absence of any alternative or effective remedy, filed the present writ petition for quashing the said
impugned order.
Special Secretary to the Government, Rural Development Department, Chennai-9 has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the Union
Council Members of the Panchayat Union, Sendurai have decided to bring no Confidence motion against M. Subramanian, Chairman, Panchayat
Union Council, Sendurai and obtained signatures from 16 Union Councilors. Out of 16 Union Councillors, three of them together have presented
the memorandum before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Udyarpalayam on 1-11-2002 along with 9 allegations and show cause notice u/s 212(3)
of the Tamilnadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1994) (in short the Act) was issued to the petitioner-Chairman, Sendurai Panchayat
Union along with a copy of the allegation on 8-11-2002, asking him to give his statement in reply to the charges within 7 days from its receipt. The
petitioner offered his explanation on 16-11-2002. The allegation of the councillor and vice chairman is that the petitioner failed to carry out the duty
cast upon him in administration of panchayat union as per the said Act and Rules and failed to give proper respect to the councillors and Vice-
Chairman. Hence, the Union Councillors moved No Confidence motion against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent issued a notice u/s 212 (4) of
the said Act to the councillors fixing the date and time of the council meeting to be convened by the 2nd respondent u/s 212 (5) of the Act. At this
stage, the petitioner filed a petition challenging the notice dated 8-11-2002. Though this Court has granted interim stay, the same has been vacated
on 26-12-2002. Hence the second respondent conducted, the no-Confidence Motion on 10-12-2002 after giving appropriate notice to the
petitioner and other councilors. A detailed report was submitted to the Secretary, Rural Development on 10-12-2002 stating that 15 councillors
out of 19 casted their vote in favour of the No-Confidence motion and signed in the Minutes to that effect. The petitioner gave a representation
against the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Government stating that at the time of conducting No confidence motion on first occasion, when the
voting took place on 10-12-2002 the motion was defeated and subsequently, there was a pandemonium and it is claimed that there after again the
motion was stated to have been passed and thereby the No-Confidence motion said to have been passed is not in accordance with the Act and
the Rules and thereby is invalid. Even the W.P. No. 3490/2003 filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by this Court on 5-2-2003 directing
the petitioner to appear before the first respondent on 17-2-2003. He appeared on that date and necessary opportunity was given to the
petitioner. He was also heard in person. The cassette produced by the petitioner was also seen by the first respondent. The petitioner gave in
writing that the video cassette was witnessed. A report was called for from the District Collector, who submitted a report on 25-2-2003 stating
that the voting took place in one sitting and thereby no confidence motion against the Chairman should be considered as passed, since out of 19
councillors, 15 councillors voted in favour of No Confidence Motion and the No Confidence Motion has been passed as per Act and Rules. On
receipt of the report, the first respondent passed an order on 13-03-2003 with a view to comply the order of this Court dated 28-02-2003. After
considering all the materials finally, the Government accepted the draft Notification and passed the impugned order. The same was gazetted on 17-
04-2003 removing the petitioner from the post of Chairman of the Panchayat Union council, Sendurai as per sub-section 13 of Section 212 of the
Act. As directed by this Court, the petitioner was heard in person. His video cassette was seen in his presence. After getting report from the
District Collector, the Government have passed the order on 17-4-2003, removing the petitioner from the post of Chairman, Sendurai Panchayat
Union Council.
Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam, 2nd respondent herein filed a separate but identical counter affidavit as that of the first respondent.
The third respondent has filed an affidavit stating that on 10-12-2002 no confidence meeting was held and it was supported by 15 members and
opposed by four members. The second respondent properly recorded the minutes of the said meeting and all the members of the Union council
including the petitioner signed in the minutes in the presence of the second respondent who forwarded the same to the first respondent-Government
for further action. Since the Government had not acted quickly, he filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 6489/2003 before this Court seeking
appropriate direction to the Government. On 28-2-2003 this Court directed the Government to pass appropriate orders within three weeks from
the date of receipt of the said order. Finally after considering all the materials, the Government have passed the impugned order. As per the said
order, in the light of the removal of the President, the Vice-Chairman-Mrs. R. Lalitha had taken charge of the post of Chairman on the same day
i.e. on 17-4-2003. There is no illegality warranting interference by this Court.
In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. Vijaynarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned
Additional Advocate General for respondents 1 and 2; and Mr. S. Muthukrishnan for third respondent.
Mr. Vijaynarayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking me through the impugned proceedings, would contend that the first respondent
has not taken into account the fact that there was twice voting on the subject motion on 10-12-2002. He also contended that the first respondent
ought to have appreciated the pendency of Writ Petition No. 41401/2002 in which the very validity of the amendment to Section 212 is in
question. According to him, no voter on any motion can be allowed to recall the vote already cast and vote for the second time. Refuting the said
contention, Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Additional Advocate General, after placing the entire file relating to no confidence motion, report
of the District Collector and the order impugned, would contend that there is no violation of any of the statutory provisions as claimed and prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition.
In the light of the specific claim of the petitioner with regard to the No Confidence Motion moved against the petitioner, who was elected as
Chairman of Sendurai Panchayat Union Council, apart from perusing the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2, I summoned the original File.
Pursuant to the direction, learned Additional Advocate General has placed the relevant File. It is seen that Panchayat Union Councillors of
Sendurai Taluk had brought a no confidence and removal motion against Chairman as early as June, 2002. Inasmuch as no confidence motion
cannot be entertained for the first year of the office of Chairman as per the Act, the same was not permitted. However, the councillors boycotted
the council meeting convened by the Chairman and meetings could not be convened on 12-08-2002 and 24-10-2002 for want of quorum. It is
further seen that as soon as the statutory one year period was passed, a no confidence motion was brought against the Chairman. It is seen from
the report of the District Collector, Perambalur District that after completion of all the formalities, the voting on the motion was scheduled on 10-
12-2002. There was no dispute over the following proper procedure on motion till voting. It is further seen that the confusion arose only on the day
of voting. According to the District Collector, a ballot paper was circulated which has two columns saying "" ek;gpf;if cz;L or ek;gpf;if , y;iy"". The
details about the motion or (Nambikai on whom) were not on ballot paper. No Confidence Motion was not written on board. It should have been
read out, but Block Development Officer said that he read only the statement of allegation and members were asked to vote. Since the ballot
paper did not mention anything, the members as per the individual understanding voted. The report further says that as soon as the counting had
started the members started shouting saying that they had voted against the Chairman i.e., what they meant by ticking means, they do not have
confidence in Chairman and not that they have no confidence in the motion. As the voting taken place under utter confusion and from the
discussion with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Block Development Officer and councillors, the first ballot paper cannot be taken as valid ballot
because the ballot paper did not contain the details of the motion, nor the members were explained that what they are voting for i.e., whether they
are voting for confidence in Chairman or for no confidence. The members realised that immediately as counting started and before the counting
was over started demanding that the voting cannot be taken as voting against the ''No Confidence motion'' they had voted against the chairman.
The report shows that the process cannot be taken as fair as the individual members were unaware of exact method of voting. In those
circumstances, a new ballot paper with exact details of motion was circulated and voting took place. Thereafter, the members voted against the
Chairman and the No Confidence Motion was passed. Immediately a Minute Book was also signed by all the members. This proves the fact that
no confidence motion has passed. Learned Additional Advocate General has produced copy of the Minutes which contain signatures of all the
members. It also shows the acceptance of result of voting. The petitioner herein-Chairman has also signed the Minutes Book and accepted the
voting. As rightly argued by the learned Additional Advocate General, if he was in disagreement of motion or procedure, he should have refused to
sign the Minute Book. The Collector has also stated in his report that both voting took place in one sitting and before the second voting the
members were not permitted to go out or relax or discuss. The Collector has concluded that out of ignorance, lack of understanding and lack of
clarity in ballot paper the confusion occurred. He also concluded that no confidence motion against the Chairman should be considered as passed
and the first vote cannot be considered as valid voting from the reasons mentioned above. As observed earlier, I have verified all the records
including the details of the Minutes which would go to show that majority of more than 2/3rd of the councillors have voted against the Chairman-
petitioner as he lost the confidence of Panchayat Union council. Though the notification issued by the first respondent-Government does not
disclose all the details, the File produced by the Additional Advocate General shows all the details and I am unable to accept the argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
As rightly argued, though there is no provision to hear the person concerned by the Government while considering the report of the Revenue
Divisional Officer u/s 212 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, in view of the earlier direction of this Court dated 5-2-2003 in W.P. No. 3490 of
2003, the Government before taking a decision on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner was given notice of personal hearing
and his video cassette was screened in the presence of the petitioner, Secretary and Director of the Department. Thereafter, the Government also
called for a report with reference to the same from the District Collector. Considering all the materials and after affording opportunity to the
petitioner, hearing his objection etc., after satisfying that the motion expressing want of confidence in M. Subramanian, Chairman, Sendurai
Panchayat Union Council was carried out with the support of 15 members out of sanctioned strength of 19 members in the meeting convened by
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam on 10-12-2002 after following the procedure specified in Section 212, the Government issued a
Notification removing the petitioner from the office of the Chairman of Panchayat Union council, Sendurai. I am satisfied that the meeting was
convened by the Revenue Divisional Officer in accordance with the statutory provision that no confidence motion was carried out by a majority of
members and the same was approved by the Government by exercising power u/s 212 of the Act and issued the impugned Notification. I do not
find any error or infirmity in the order impugned; consequently the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.