AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The writ petitioner is the Chairman of the Thiruppuvanam Panchayat Union, Sivaganga District. She has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 01.09.2008 and 02.09.2008, wherein and by which the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivaganga directed to submit her remarks on the motion of no confidence presented by 14 Panchayat Union Councillors and also had convened a special meeting of the Panchayat Union Council on 19.09.2008 for discussing the said motion.
Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is completely repugnant to Section 212 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. He further submitted that in terms of Section 212(2), there is no evidence to show that the motion was presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer in person by two of the Councillors who are signatories to the motion. According to him, reading of the correspondence shows that it has been forwarded by the Assistant Director of Panchayat and therefore, this is the first flow in the proceedings initiated by him.
The second submission was that in terms of Section 212(3) statement of charges along with the motion will have to be given to her and she must be given seven days'' time to submit her explanation. Even before her explanation is received, the Revenue Divisional Officer had convened a meeting which is improper. Apart from that, he also submitted that by convening a meeting on 04.09.2008, there was a violation u/s 212(5). For the reasons best known to them, the said meeting was postponed and by the impugned notice the meeting has been reconvened on 19.09.2008. For postponing the meeting, no explanation was given by the respondents. u/s 212(7), if he is unable to preside over the meeting, reasons should be recorded for adjourning the meeting and no such reasons are forthcoming. On these grounds the learned Counsel wanted to set aside the impugned notice.
He also submitted that the petitioner has been an elected Chairman and belonged to a deprived section. But, she has not been allowed to function for the last ten months without any justification. She had also approached the District Collector for appropriate orders to transact the business of the Panchayat Union. Even before any decision could be taken she is being bounded out.
After careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the notice convening the meeting of the Panchayat Union Council members on 19.09.2008. It is for the petitioner to attend the said meeting and convince the members to drop the move or secure the support of the majority.
The impugned notice dated 01.09.2008 clearly shows that the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer had referred to the proceedings of the Assistant Director of Panchayat, Sivaganga, and on the basis of the said communication, an explanation was sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Counsel presumes that the motion for no confidence was not handed over in person to the Revenue Divisional Officer as required u/s 212(2).
This Court is unable to agree to the said submission. Because in the communication dated 28.08.2008, sent by the Commissioner Panchayat Union to the Chairman and all the members of the Panchayat Union Council, there is a reference to the letter of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai dated 27.08.2008. A perusal of the said letter shows that on the basis of the Revenue Divisional Officer''s letter only a meeting has been convened on 04.09.2008. Further there is no material to show that no such no confidence motion was given personally to the Revenue Divisional Officer. On the basis of the self serving statement given by the petitioner, it cannot be presumed. Statutory Authorities are expected to act within four corners of law and it is for the petitioner to prove that there was deviation.
Even otherwise after the impugned notice dated 01.09.2008, the petitioner had given her explanation dated 08.09.2008 in detail and had refuted the charges levelled by the councillors against her. In view of that explanation, no prejudice had caused to her by the notice for explanation given by the authorities. She had given point by point reply to the charges levelled against her by the councillors.
The second impugned Notice dated 02.09.2008 was issued under the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer. He had convened the meeting on 19.09.2008 which is clearly 15 days'' as prescribed u/s 212(5) of the Act. Therefore, there is no infraction of the provisions of the act insofar as convening of the meeting is concerned. The petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced, for the convening of the meeting.
On the contrary, what is now sought to be argued is that the original meeting was convened on 04.09.2008 and that meeting was adjourned to 15.09.2008. For that adjournment, no reasons were given. This argument is self-contradictory. The intention of Act is to give 15 days'' clear notice in terms of Section 212(5). For the present meeting 15 days'' time from the date of the notice had given to the councillors. Therefore, the petitioner cannot argue in both ways. Firstly, that the meeting that was convened on 04.09.2008 was short of notice period under the Act and secondly, the meeting was adjourned without any justification. May realising that the meeting fell short of the statutory requirement it might have been postponed.
Ultimately, the only question that remains to be answered is, if the elected members of Panchayat Union Councillors wanted to exercise their power in terms of Section 212 of the Act and that exercise has to be tested in the context of procedural requirement contemplated under the Act.
This Court is of the view that there was no infraction of any procedure. The petitioner cannot be stated to the prejudiced by the procedure adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Consequently, this is a case where the will of the councillors must prevail and not their charges or the counter charges levelled against the petitioner should decided such an issue.
The learned council finally stated that the letter enclosed in the typed set of papers at Page No. 6, signed by the councillors was originally addressed to the District Collector which was in turn forwarded to the Assistant Director of Panchayat, who in turn had forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer. This contention had already been dealt with elsewhere in the order.
This Court is unable to conclude on the basis of the photostat copy produced before this Court which according to the petitioner is the only no confidence motion, on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer and not any other motion. On the basis of mere assertion made by the petitioner and interdict the process of motion of no confidence in midway.
Under these circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived and accordingly it stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.