AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—The challenge in this writ appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 02.11.2007, passed in W.P.(MD)
No. 9031/2007.
A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this writ appeal would run thus:
W.P.(MD) No. 9031/2007 was focussed before the learned Single Judge of this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to take action on
the representation of the appellant dated 05.10.2006 u/s 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats, Act 1994 (hereinafter referred to as �the Act�).
The learned Single Judge thought fit to dismiss it on the ground that u/s 205(1)(b) of the Act atleast 2/3rd members of the village panchayat should
make such a representation and thereupon only Section 205 could be pressed into service. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order,
this writ appeal has been filed on the main ground that earlier Resolution of the panchayat dated 31.07.2006 was tampered with, by forgery at the
instance of the present office bearers and that it warrants action to be taken by the Collector concerned.
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant who would air the grievance to the effect that even though the appellant may not have the locus
standi to invoke Section 205(1)(b) of the Act, yet he is having a right to petition the authority concerned so as to make him to invoke his suo-motu
power u/s 205(1)(a) and that there is no embargo for the appellant to seek remedy before this Court in that regard.
The point for consideration is as to whether a non-member of the panchayat could petition the authority concerned for invoking his suo-motu
power contemplated u/s 205(1)(a) of the Act and whether in the event of the authority not acting, whether a writ would lie?
Here the main grievance of the appellant is not even relating to any public duty which the panchayat has failed to perform. The nitty-gritty of the
case of the appellant is that earlier there was a resolution by the panchayat on 31.07.2006 to the effect that a particular place in the panchayat was
resolved to be named after one NKS. Mohammed Mydeen, the appellant''s father; however, owing to personal vendetta, the present office
bearers of the panchayat did choose to forge the earlier resolution. The act complained of is purely relating to the elected body''s function within
the ambit of its power. If a writ is issued merely based on a third party''s representation that such an elected body committed forgery, etc., then it
would not be proper.
We are of the considered opinion that Section 205(1)(a) of the Act contemplates suo-motu action that could be taken by the Inspector of
Panchayats. Issuance of a writ in that regard directing the authority to apply his mind on the representation submitted to him for invoking his suo-
motu power, would tantamount to undue interference with the independent function of that authority concerned. Law does not simply stop with
Section 205(1)(a) of the Act. If really any grievance is there, then the members of the panchayat, so as to say 2/3rd of it, could certainly set the
law in motion. As such, law has given two remedies, one remedy is suo-motu power being exercised by the authority concerned and another 2/3rd
of the members of the panchayat setting the law in motion. Over and above that, if we add anything to the two alternatives by ordering that any
third party could petition the authority concerned to invoke his suo-motu power u/s 205(1)(a) of the Act, it would not be in commensurate with the
legislative mandate as contemplated u/s 205 of the Act. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant would earnestly pray for atleast issuing a
direction to the authority concerned to consider his representation dated 05.10.2006 request. We are of the considered opinion that no such
direction could be given for the reasons set out supra.
Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, it is open for the appellant to approach the appropriate authority under
any other provision of law, which would enable him in this regard.