P. Thenmozhi Subramaniam vs The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat and Others

K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner, who is an elected President of Akkarai Kodivery Panchayat in Thukkanaickampalayam, Erode District, has

come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to set aside the order of the 1st Respondent District Collector dated 30.9.2010, which

concluded with the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 26.10.2010 and seek for setting aside the same.

Notice of Motion was ordered on 8.11.2010. Pending the Notice of Motion, this Court on the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the

meeting, which was convened on 9.11.2010, but the decision taken in the meeting was directed not to be given effect to for a period of two

weeks.

In the meanwhile, aggrieved by the interim order obtained by the Petitioner, 7 Ward Members of the Village Panchayat led by K.V. Palanisamy

filed M.P. No. 3 of 2010 and get themselves impleaded vide order dated 6.1.2001. They have also filed M.P. No. 1 of 2011 for vacating the

interim order together with the counter affidavit dated 24.11.2010.

The Petitioner has raised two questions. With reference to the impugned notice, the first was that the impugned notice dated 30.9.2010 was

signed by one P. Kumaravel Pandian describing himself as Inspector of Panchayat cum District Collector incharge. Therefore, it is stated that

insofar as the signatory to the impugned notice was not authorised by any special order under the Act, he has no jurisdiction to issue the notice.

The second contention was that the 2nd Respondent, in the absence of any order passed u/s 205(1) of the Panchayats Act by the actual District

Collector, could not convene the meeting to consider the motion presented by the impleaded Respondents. A further statement was also made that

the original representation was not actually signed by them and it should not be taken note of.

A perusal of the records shows that the impleaded Respondents earlier filed W.P. No. 17977 of 2010 seeking for a direction to dispose of their

representation. This Court by an order dated 19.8.2010 directed the District Collector to take appropriate action. The grievance projected by

these persons was that despite their request to take action against the President, the District Collector was not taking action. It is pursuant to the

direction, the impugned notice came to be issued. Though the Petitioner alleged that the Writ Petition was filed by forging the signature, this Court

is not inclined to accept the said contention because the very same persons have come forward to file M.P. No. 3 of 2010 seeking themselves to

implead as party Respondents in the main Writ Petition. They have also filed an application to vacate stay in M.P. No. 1 of 2011. Therefore, the

allegation that the impleaded Respondents did not subscribe their signature or did not authorise any one to file the Writ Petition cannot be

accepted.

The second contention that the District Collector is not authorised under the provisions of the Act also cannot be accepted because u/s 2(16) of

the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, the ""Inspector of Panchayat"" has been defined and it would only mean that any officer not below the rank of

District Collector appointed by the Government to exercise or perform any of the powers or duties of the Inspector under the Act. The contention

of the Petitioner that the District Collector was not notified by a special notification cannot be accepted because in the case of the Petitioner, the

very same District Collector by a Gazette Notification dated 4.4.2008 describing himself as Inspector of Panchayat has issued a Notification

permitting the Petitioner to perform the duties by herself without convening the meeting of the Counsellors in terms of the power exercised u/s

204(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. The Petitioner having got the benefit of such a notification from the same authority cannot turn back and

question the powers of the said authority. In any event, the State Government has recognised the District Collector as the Inspector of the

Panchayat and no other person has been notified for that post. Therefore, the first submission must fall.

The other contention that the impugned order has been signed by the District Collector incharge also cannot be accepted because the incharge

Collector has the same power as that of the District Collector. The question as to whether the person who is holding the post as incharge has got

power to discharge the statutory powers, came to be considered by a Full Bench of this Court in A. Savariar v. the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public

Service Commission, Chennai-2 reported in 2008 (4) CTC 753, and the contention to the contrary was rejected. It was held by this Court that the

persons who are holding the post as incharge is entitled to perform the duties of the said officer. It is useful to refer to the following passage found

in paragraph 7 of the said judgment:

Under such circumstances, unless contrary intention is expressed by the Government either by way of a statutory provision or by way of an

executive instruction, a Government servant who holds the post as in-charge has got power/to discharge the statutory functions and responsibilities

of the said post.

The second Notification came to be issued pursuant to the statutory power exercised by the District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat u/s

205(1) of the Act. u/s 205(3) of the Act, it is the Tahsildar, who is the authority to convene the meeting. Therefore, there is no illegality or want of

jurisdiction in the impugned order. In the counter filed by the impleaded Respondents, it was stated in para 12 that the meeting had already taken

place on 9.11.2010 and only because of the interim order, the results have not been published. Since the Petitioner has not made out a case, the

Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed. However, there is no impediment for the official

Respondents to publish the results of the meeting held on 9.11.2010 and act accordingly.