R. Sivasamy vs The District Collector

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioner, who was elected as the President of a Village Panchayat, has come up with the above writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Tahsildar convening a meeting of the Village Panchayat for ascertaining the views of the members on the charges framed against the petitioner under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994.

Heard Mr.M.Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

The petitioner was elected as the President of Thennamanallur Village Panchayat of Thondamuthur Panchayat Union in Coimbatore District, in the local body elections held in October 2011. On 12.7.2012, the District Collector issued a show cause notice under Section 205 of the Act, listing out various charges against the petitioner and calling upon him to give an explanation. Challenging the show cause notice, the petitioner came up with a writ petition in W.P.No. 20425 of 2012. The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 03.8.2012, on the ground that the petitioner can give a reply to the charges.

In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner sought permission of the District Collector to inspect certain documents before he could give an explanation to the charges. He was permitted to inspect the documents and submit his objections.

The petitioner submitted his objections to the charges on 08.10.2012. Thereafter, the District Collector appears to have issued proceedings dated 09.01.2014 directing the Tahsildar, Coimbatore South Taluk to convene a meeting of the Panchayat for considering the charges and the explanation. Accordingly, the Tahsildar issued a notice dated 27.01.2014 convening a meeting of the Panchayat to be held on 11.02.2014. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner is before this Court in a second round of litigation.

The main objection of the petitioner to the impugned notice is that as per the decision of this Court in P.Packiyam v. The Inspector of Panchayat/The District Collector [2013 (1) CWC 797], the Inspector of Panchayat is obliged to consider the objections and form an opinion as to whether the explanation is satisfactory or not, before directing the Tahsildar to convene a meeting of the Panchayat. Unlike the election of a leader of the House in the State Assemblies or the Parliament, the President of a Village Panchayat is elected directly by the elector and therefore, the constitutional mandate to have Village Panchayats as independent forms of local Self-Government, cannot be destroyed through official control. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the power under Section 205 cannot be exercised without scrupulously adhering to the procedure established. In this connection, the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others, .

I have carefully considered the above submissions.

It is true that after the 74th Amendment to the Constitution, the local Self-Governments are given an autonomy and the same is expected to be unshackled from official control, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir. Therefore, greater care and scrutiny may be necessary when an action is initiated in terms of Section 205.

The main contention of the petitioner is that after the submission of the explanation to the charges, the District Collector should form an opinion as to whether the explanation is satisfactory or not. In P.Packiyam, K.K.Sasidharan,J, held that the power under Section 205(2) to summon the Village Panchayat for ascertaining the views of its members can be exercised only on forming an opinion on the existence of circumstances suggesting unsatisfactory nature of explanation. But, the learned Judge pointed out in paragraph 28 that it is not necessary to record detailed reasons. Paragraph 28 of the order of the learned Judge reads as follows:

"The Law is, therefore, clear that the power under sub-section (2) of Section 205 to summon the Village Panchayat for ascertaining the views of the members can be exercised only on forming an opinion on the existence of circumstances suggesting unsatisfactory nature of explanation. However, it is not necessary to record detailed reasons. The brief reasons in support of the order rejecting the explanation to the notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 205 must be reflected either in the order directing the Tahsildar to convene the meeting or in the relevant file in the shape of notings or endorsements."

In the light of the above decision, I summoned the file from the office of the Collector. In the note file, it is found that the charges as well as the explanation are typed in detail. In the last paragraph of the note file, the brief reasons as to why the charges could be held proved are recorded. Therefore, the District Collector has recorded that the explanation is not satisfactory. Therefore, this is not a case which will fall within the mischief pointed out in P.Packiyam.

Therefore, I find that there are no merits in the writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed. However, the Tahsildar may issue a fresh notice convening a meeting of the Panchayat, keeping in mind the duration of time required for convening the meeting as per the provisions of Section 205. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014 are also dismissed.