AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Raja, J.—This writ petition has been filed by seven persons, who are all the Vice President and Members, elected to the Arimuthumottur Panchayat in Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District during October, 2011, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent, the Inspector of Panchayats and District Collector, Vellore in proceedings Na.Ka.A3/1627/2012 dated 18.12.2012, which culminated in the impugned proceedings bearing Na.Ka.A3/1627/2012 dated 27.12.2012, to quash the same with a direction to the first respondent to take action in accordance with law against the fourth respondent on the basis of the complaints and representations given by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Arimuthumottur village is primarily dependent upon agriculture and most of the villagers are employed in the Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills. While so, when the election for the village panchayat was held in October, 2011, the petitioners 1 to 7 were elected along with three others. Finally, the fourth respondent, Mrs. Ramya Pandian was elected as the President of the village panchayat for a period of five years. The first petitioner, Mrs. P. Malarkodi was also elected as the Vice President of the village panchayat. When all the members of the panchayat as well as the fourth respondent-President are holding the office for the first time, the fourth respondent, it was pleaded, has not properly implemented the scheme of the Government. Moreover, the fourth respondent''s husband has been deliberately interfering with the affairs of the panchayat, besides, the fourth respondent''s husband has been accompanying the fourth respondent for all the meetings, and thereby he is interfering in the proceedings officially held in the panchayat board office. When none of the basic necessities and essential needs of the panchayat like street lighting, water supply, sanitation, laying of proper roads, spraying of mosquito repellants, implementation of Government schemes were carried out by the fourth respondent even after withdrawal of sufficient money from the funds of the panchayat, several complaints have been made by the villagers about the problems faced by them. Although these problems were brought to the knowledge of the fourth respondent, no action was taken to resolve the same. Therefore, when complaints were made before the first respondent-District Collector to take appropriate action for the irregularities, misconduct and illegalities committed by the fourth respondent, no proper action was taken. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while indicating specific complaints, also stated that despite availability of abundant water for the village, when water was supplied once in a week, some of the villagers indulged in road-roko and frequent agitations made by some of the villagers demanding proper supply of water also went in vain. When the third respondent and his officers intervened and assured to give suitable instructions to the fourth respondent to take suitable action, again the fourth respondent did not abide by the promise given by her. Therefore, the petitioners have recently obtained information under the Right to Information Act relating to the bills that have been cleared by the fourth respondent in this regard, as most of the bills are undated and some of the bills did not even reflect the TIN and CST numbers. All these things are clearly showing that the fourth respondent, President of the village panchayat, is not properly spending the money for the development of the village. Adding further, he stated that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- collected by the fourth respondent from each of the 83 beneficiaries for distributing goats under the Priceless Sheep and Goat Scheme of the Government of Tamil Nadu, has indulged in all unwanted activities, by siphoning a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the funds granted by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the said scheme. Moreover, the fourth respondent also collected a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each from 30 villagers belonging to Narikuravar community for providing group houses. When these acts are clearly constituting a grave misconduct on the part of the fourth respondent, a written complaint dated 23.4.2012 was made to the first respondent, however, no action was taken on the same by the first respondent. When repeated complaints pinpointing the embezzlement of the panchayat money has been brought to light, the fourth respondent, under the pretext of maintaining the street lights in the village, has not even ensured the street lights in all the streets in the village. Therefore, when the members of the panchayat also listed out specific instances for taking action against the fourth respondent with a request that the fourth respondent has even gone to the extent of forging the signature of the first petitioner-Vice President, no action was taken. However, when a criminal complaint was also filed in person to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Katpadi with all the relevant documents to the respondents 1 to 3 and others, alleging that a cheque bearing No. 932446 dated 24.7.2012 for Rs. 97,385/- has been encashed with the forged signature of the first petitioner, the same has been sent for verification of the signature of the first petitioner. However, when the first respondent, accepting the serious complaints made by the first petitioner and signed by the other members of the village panchayat, appointed the Deputy Block Development Officer of the Katpadi Panchayat Union to enquire into the complaint, she conducted a detailed enquiry on 11.10.2012, in which the members of the panchayat including the petitioners also participated and brought out the grievance including the typical manner in which the fourth respondent was conducting the affairs. But the report submitted by the Deputy Block Development Officer also failed to address the specific complaint made against the fourth respondent on the collection of Rs. 5,000/- from the each of the beneficiaries towards the beneficiary contribution as mentioned in the application for top-up loan for housing under the differential rate of interest scheme. One another problem, he pleaded, specifically and repeatedly brought before the first respondent-District Collector about the collection of Rs. 2,000/- by the fourth respondent from each of the 83 beneficiaries for distributing goats under the Priceless Sheep and Goat Scheme of the Government of Tamil Nadu, was also not properly addressed in the report submitted by the Deputy Block Development Officer of Katpadi Panchayat Union. Therefore, when the repeated complaints made by the petitioners to the first respondent had gone unheeded, the petitioners requested the first respondent to treat their representation as no confidence motion and sought for removal of the fourth respondent. But the first respondent, merely accepting the report submitted by the Deputy Block Development Officer of Katpadi Panchayat Union, instead of taking suitable action against the fourth respondent, has passed the impugned order u/s 204(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act stating that the fourth respondent need not even convene the meeting, but she can go ahead with her programme for implementation of the village scheme, for the reason that the petitioners are not attending the panchayat meeting, as a result, the basic amenities to the village could not be ensured. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come to this Court. It was also further submitted that when the Indira Awaas Yojana Scheme specifically does not mention about the collection of Rs. 5,000/- each from the beneficiaries, the collection of Rs. 5,000/- each in the guise of beneficiary contribution is reflecting the bad functioning of the fourth respondent. Although all these irregularities were brought to the notice of the District Collector, the impugned order directing the fourth respondent to hold the panchayat meeting without the presence of the petitioners is absolutely unfair and unjust. Therefore, the same is required to be interfered with. When the first respondent has passed an order stating that for about six months the fourth respondent can go ahead with the village panchayat proceedings including the meeting without the presence of the petitioners, the impugned order is not only mala fide, but also going against the very object of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, then the fourth respondent, taking support of the impugned order, will not even take into account the grievance of the petitioners, ultimately, a part of the village will suffer great prejudice. On this basis, he prayed for setting aside the same by allowing the writ petition.
A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent. Since this Court had granted an order of interim stay on 8.3.2013, the fourth respondent-President of the village, has filed the vacate stay petition in M.P. No. 3 of 2013 seeking a prayer to vacate the order of stay, on the ground that after the fourth respondent was elected as the President, she has been implementing the scheme of the Government and all the basic necessities and essential needs of the villagers like street lighting, water supply, sanitation, laying of proper roads, spraying of mosquito repellants have been done in a phased manner as and when required. When the schemes of the Government are properly implemented by the fourth respondent by taking into account the welfare of the villagers, only the petitioners have made false complaints. However, the first respondent-District Collector, after entertaining the complaints, finding that none of the villagers have made any specific complaint or no complaints have been made by the panchayat Assistants, an enquiry was directed to be conducted by the Assistant Director (Panchayats), Vellore on behalf of the first respondent. After the completion of enquiry, when the report was submitted, the first respondent came to know through the report that the writ petitioners are not co-operating with the fourth respondent in the discharge of her statutory duties. Therefore, when the report submitted by the Assistant Director (Panchayats), Vellore revealed that all the members of the Wards, although had been served with the agenda for the meeting, were only in the habit of signing the attendance, but not signing the resolution register, the first respondent rightly came to the conclusion that only the writ petitioners are not co-operating with the President of the village panchayat in the day-to-day affairs to ensure the basic necessities to the village. Moreover, in regard to the allegation of collection of Rs. 2,000/- from the beneficiaries as a condition precedent for implementing the distribution of goats under the Priceless Sheep and Goat Scheme, the report submitted by the Assistant Director (Panchayats), Vellore has made it clear that none of the villagers have come forward with any complaint in this regard. When the purchase of sheep and goats are directly done between the vendor and the seller in front of the officers of the Animal Husbandry Department, a conclusion has been reached in the report that the allotment of funds by the Animal Husbandry Department cannot and could not be misappropriated by the fourth respondent. Similarly, when Rs. 75,000/- was allotted for construction of houses for Narikuravar community, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was to be collected as the beneficiary contribution. Only thereafter, the bank would extend the loan for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- making the total financial allocation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for construction of houses under the Indira Awaas Yojana scheme. When this practical picture was brought to the notice of the Assistant Director (Panchayats), Vellore, he being aware of this collection of Rs. 5,000/-, the complaint made against the fourth respondent stating that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was sought to be collected from each beneficiary under the Indira Awaas Yojana Scheme, cannot be held to be correct. Moreover, when the report submitted by the Additional Director of Village Panchayat does not speak about the illegal receipt of Rs. 5,000/-, the District Collector has also rightly accepted the same. That apart, there was no good response, hence, whatever the amount received from the beneficiaries were refunded and the scheme itself was closed. Therefore, the District Collector, by taking into account one another report submitted by the Deputy Block Development Officer of Katpadi Panchayat Union stating that only the petitioners are not co-operating with the fourth respondent for implementation of the Government scheme, has rightly come to the conclusion that for about six months, the petitioners need not be invited for passing any resolution or for transacting any official business in the panchayat board meeting for the purpose of implementing any scheme for the villagers of the panchayat, hence, he pleaded, when the report of the Deputy Block Development Officer of Katpadi Panchayat Union and the report submitted by the Assistant Director (Panchayats), Vellore specifically denied the false complaint made by the petitioners in their various representations, the first respondent has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners alone are responsible for not allowing the fourth respondent to proceed with the village meeting, resultantly, the villagers are facing problems in getting water and other schemes being implemented, accordingly, as an Inspector of all villages, in the interest of the villages, invoking his powers u/s 204(3) of the Act, authorised the Village President to sign the cheque unilaterally so as to perform the duties imposed on her. Therefore, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent sought for no interference.
The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 & 2, after filing a detailed counter affidavit, has also stated that so far as the allegation in regard to the receipt of Rs. 5,000/- in the guise of beneficiary contribution under the Indira Awaas Yojana Scheme is concerned, apart from the Government allocation of a sum of Rs. 75,000/- for construction of houses to the Narikuravar community, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is collected as the beneficiary contribution and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is provided by the bank towards loan, making the total financial allocation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- per house. Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioners that the fourth respondent has collected Rs. 5,000/- illegally from each beneficiary is not correct. In regard to one another allegation made by the petitioners, as brought before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in respect of forging of the first petitioner''s signature in a cheque bearing No. 932446 dated 24.7.2012 for Rs. 97,385/- is concerned, it has been pleaded by the learned Additional Government Pleader that when a specific complaint has been filed alleging forgery of the first petitioner''s signature by the fourth respondent for clearing the sum of Rs. 97,385/-, after registering the criminal complaint, the cheque showing the withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 97,385/- has been sent for proper verification of the signature of the first petitioner, therefore, as and when any report is received in regard to the forgery, if any, suitable criminal action would be taken against the concerned person. Barring this, it was stated that as of today, the petitioners are not properly co-operating with the fourth respondent. Although several complaints have been made now and then by the petitioners as the Vice President and other Ward Members, after a direction to the Deputy Block Development Officer of Katpadi Panchayat Union and also the second respondent, the Assistant Director (Panchayats), Vellore to conduct enquiries, both of them have independently conduced enquiries by meeting the villagers. When the villagers have specifically denied the collection of Rs. 5,000/- stating that the fourth respondent has not collected this amount and further when the Deputy Block Development Officer and the Assistant Director (Panchayats), Vellore have also made detailed enquiries and submitted their reports stating that the fourth respondent had collected Rs. 5,000/- as the beneficiary contribution, however, when there was no proper co-operation from all persons for the implementation of the scheme, the said amount also has been returned to all the persons. That apart, it was pleaded, when the allegation of collecting Rs. 5,000/- in the guise of beneficiary contribution from the Narikuravar community is not true, as the fourth respondent has collected the said amount being a part of the Indira Awaas Yojana Scheme, the allegation made by the petitioners is required to be held as unsubstantiated.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The fourth respondent was elected as the Village President of Arimuthumottur Panchayat from October, 2011. The petitioners 1 to 7 were also elected as members of the said panchayat. Thereafter, in implementing the various basic amenities and essential needs of the panchayat like street lighting, water supply, sanitation, laying of proper roads, spraying of pesticides to control mosquitoes and the implementation of the Government schemes, various complaints have been filed by the petitioners against the Village President, the fourth respondent herein. In this connection, on 18.10.2012, some of the petitioners had also resorted to road-roko expressing objection against the fourth respondent''s style of functioning, joining hands with her husband. When the petitioners have given a complaint alleging that there has been illegal collection of huge sums of money from the beneficiaries towards the construction of houses to Narikuravar community people, that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each has been collected as the beneficiary''s contribution, the District Collector appointed the second respondent-Assistant Director (Panchayats), Vellore to go into the veracity of the complaint. Similarly, when the petitioners have made one another serious complaint that the Vice President''s signature has been forged in the cheque bearing No. 932446 for misappropriating a sum of Rs. 97,385/- in the guise of purchasing submotor pump, after taking note of the fact that a criminal complaint also has been filed in this connection, the Deputy Block Development Officer of Katpadi Panchayat Union was appointed to conduct an enquiry. Finally, an enquiry was conducted on 11.10.2012, in which the members of the panchayat including the petitioners had participated. On completion of enquiry, the Block Development Officer submitted his report. After receipt of the report from the Block Development Officer and the second respondent-Assistant Director (Panchayats), the first respondent-District Collector came to the conclusion that the ward members, who were elected to serve the villagers by implementing the welfare schemes, had refused to take part in passing the resolutions and thereby stalled all the activities of the village panchayat. Further, after considering the two reports submitted by the Assistant Director and the Block Development Officer, the District Collector came to the conclusion that the writ petitioners never acted in the interest of the village panchayat by extending their co-operation for implementing the welfare schemes. Moreover, when the villagers have not come forward with any specific complaint that the President of the village had received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the beneficiary''s contribution or any other gratification towards the construction of houses for Narikuravar community under the Indira Awaas Yojana scheme, rejected the case of the petitioners that there is no question of siphoning off a huge amount in the guise of beneficiary''s contribution or in the guise of maintaining street lighting, except the complaint dated 21.8.2012 addressed to the Deputy Superintendent of Police alleging embezzlement of Rs. 97,385/- by forging the signature of the Vice President in the cheque bearing No. 932446, as a result, the Branch Manager of Indian Bank, Katpadi was addressed to send the said cheque for transmission to the forensic science department, Guindy, Chennai for a report and the petitioners and the fourth respondent have to wait for the outcome of the said investigation. However, the records produced by the fourth respondent-President of the village panchayat with regard to the cheque amount of Rs. 97,385/- is concerned, the said amount was approved by the Assistant Engineer (RD), Block Development Office, Katpadi for purchase of submotor with pump on 20.4.2012.
Be that as it may, since the report is awaited on the correctness of the signature of the Vice President on the cheque, no further observation is required thereon. Although the fourth respondent has mentioned that the cheque was duly signed by the first petitioner and only pursuant to appropriate resolution passed in the village meeting, the said cheque was issued to the party, but, for the reasons best known to the Vice President, she has retracted the same. The District Collector being the Inspector of Panchayat, finding from the reports submitted by the second respondent and the third respondent, came to the conclusion that the members of the village panchayat including the Vice President are not coming forward to implement the various project and schemes, as a result, even the basic amenities like street lighting, water supply, sanitation, laying of proper roads, spraying of pesticides to control mosquitoes, implementation of Government schemes have been completely hampered. Therefore, the first respondent, invoking the power vested u/s 204(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, rightly authorised the President to sign the cheques unilaterally and continue to perform the duties imposed on her without conducting any meeting for a period of six months, knowing pretty well that the petitioners and other members are not co-operating with the Village President, the fourth respondent herein. When the invocation of powers vested u/s 204(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act by the first respondent has been rightly exercised, in view of the total non co-operation by the writ petitioners in preventing the village President from taking care of the basic amenities to the villagers, this Court is not able to see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, finding no infirmity in the impugned order, this Court dismisses the writ petition. Consequently, interim stay stands vacated and the M.P. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2013 are also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.