V. Shanmugasundaram vs The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat, The Assistant Director of Rural Development and The Block Development Officer

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 18 June 2013 on the file of Inspector of Panchayat, Coimbatore

calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the office of the Presidentship of Thalavai Palayam Panchayat.

The facts:

The petitioner was elected as the President of Thalavai Palayam Panchayat during the last election held on 21 October 2011. It was a direct

election. Since the petitioner was not a member of the ruling party, the members of the panchayat belonging to the rival faction had been making

baseless complaints against him. The Inspector of Panchayat initiated action to take away the cheque signing power of the petitioner. The order

dated 8 December 2011 withdrawing the cheque signing facility was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 29237 of 2011. The High Court

was pleased to grant interim stay of the said order. The writ petition is pending.

Thereafter, the Inspector of Panchayat, suo motu initiated action against the petitioner u/s 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The

petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice issued by the Inspector of Panchayat. Similar proceedings were initiated against the

Vice President also. The Inspector of Panchayat thereafter directed the Tahsildar to convene a conduct special meeting of the panchayat Council.

The meeting was convened on 23 January 2013. The resolution passed by the Panchayat was forwarded to the Inspector of Panchayat.

Thereafter, the impugned notice was issued calling for explanation as to why he should not be removed from the office u/s 205 of the Tamil Nadu

Panchayats Act. The said notice is under challenge.

The Inspector of Panchayat filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the contentions taken by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the

writ petition. According to the Inspector of Panchayat, the Assistant Director of Rural Development inspected the records of the Village

panchayat. He found several irregularities and a report to that effect was submitted. The Inspector of Panchayat, based on the said report, initiated

action u/s 205 of the Act. The Panchayat meeting was convened on 23 January 2013. In the said meeting, out of six members four members have

voted against the petitioner. Since majority of the members have voted against the petitioner, second show cause notice was issued to him.

According to the Inspector of Panchayat, the impugned notice is only a show cause notice and as such the writ petition is not maintainable.

Submissions:

The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on various judgments contended that the Inspector of Panchayat had acted at the

instance of ruling party to remove the President from office. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is not a member of the ruling party and

that was the sole reason for initiating action u/s 205 of the Act. The learned counsel by placing reliance on the charges levelled against the petitioner

contended that charges were all flimsy in nature. The petitioner in his explanation very clearly explained the position and even thereafter the

Inspector of Panchayat proceeded to take action. The learned counsel contended that in any case, the petitioner would be disqualified by the first

respondent and as such he wanted this Court to consider the entire matter and to quash the notice.

The learned Additional Advocate General contended that the very writ petition is not maintainable in view of the nature of the proceedings under

challenge. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the first respondent is a statutory authority exercising power u/s 205 of the Act.

The first respondent having found that there were materials against the petitioner to initiate action u/s 205 of the Act, suo motu issued the notice. It

was only after complying with the statutory requirements, the second show cause notice was issued. The learned Additional Advocate General

contended that the petitioner would be given reasonable opportunity to submit his version and thereafter orders would be passed on merits.

Analysis:

The petitioner is the President of Thalavai Palyam Panchayat. The Assistant Director of Rural Development conducted a routine inspection in

Thalavai Palayam Panchayat. The Assistant Director found certain financial irregularities. The Assistant Director in his report indicated the details of

such irregularities. The District Collector in his capacity as Inspector of Panchayat was of the view that action should be taken against the petitioner

u/s 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. The District Collector issued a notice to the petitioner under Sub-Section (1) of Section 205 of the

Act. The petitioner submitted his explanation and requested to drop further proceedings. The explanation was not found satisfactory and the same

resulted in directing the Tahsildar to convene the meeting of the Village Panchayat. The Village Panchayat at its meeting held on 23 January 2013

resolved to support the resolution. There were only two members to support the petitioner out of the total number of six members. The Tahsildar

recorded the minutes of the meeting and the same was forwarded to the Inspector of Panchayat. The Inspector of Panchayat before exercising his

power under sub-section (11) of Section 205 issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner. It is only the said notice which is under

challenge in this writ petition.

The petitioner has no case that the Inspector of Panchayat failed to follow the statutory requirements before issuing notice. Section 205 contains

detailed provisions indicating the steps to be taken by the Inspector of Panchayat before removing the elected President from office. Though there

is no statutory provision requiring issuance of second show cause notice to the concerned President after expressing the views by the members of

panchayat, still the Collector was pleased to issue the impugned notice to the petitioner. By issuing show cause notice, it cannot be said that the

Collector arrived at a factual finding with regard to the misconduct. The Collector was expected to consider the explanation submitted by the

petitioner and thereafter to take a decision on merits. It is only when the Collector arrives at a factual finding against the petitioner, order u/s

205(11) of the Act, would be issued. Such a stage has not reached so far. The petitioner even before considering the case by the Inspector of

Panchayat rushed to this Court with this writ petition. The apprehension that in all probability the Inspector of Panchayat would pass an adverse

order to remove him from office, cannot be a reason to entertain the writ petition against the notice. The Collector in his counter affidavit very

clearly stated that the explanation would be considered before taking further action in the matter.

The writ petition is not an appellate proceedings. The Court is concerned only with the decision making process. The merits or otherwise of the

decision cannot normally be the subject matter of review. The Inspector of Panchayat is yet to take final decision in the matter. The petitioner did

not want the statutory authority to pass orders. The statute giving authority to the Inspector of Panchayat to take action is not under challenge. So

long as it is clear that the Inspector of Panchayat is having jurisdiction to take action u/s 205 of the Act, he should be permitted to exercise the said

statutory power. It is only when the District Collector exercised the power for extraneous consideration or in violation of the statutory provisions,

the Court would get an opportunity to look into those reasons to arrive at a finding. Such a stage has not reached so far. The writ petition is too

pre-mature.

In the upshot, I dismiss the writ petition. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

W.P. No. 17582 of 2013

After pronouncing the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not given reply to the notice and as such

reasonable time should be given. The petitioner is given time till 9 December, 2013 to submit the objection to the notice issued by the first

respondent. The first respondent should thereafter consider the objection and pass appropriate orders without in any manner being influenced by

any of the observations made in this order.