AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17-06-2004 passed in
W.P. No. 38589 of 2003 dismissing the Writ Petition. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that the appellant is the President of
Muthukalipatti village Panchayat. She got elected to the said post in the election held in 2001 and assumed charge on 25-10-2001. The fourth
respondent herein got elected as Vice President of the same village Panchayat on 31 -10-2001. The bank accounts of the concerned Panchayat
were operated upon jointly by the appellant as well as the fourth respondent herein. The appellant had some grievance against the fourth
respondent and she wanted the first respondent to nominate a different person as a co-signatory to operate bank accounts which was not acceded
to by the first respondent. The said claim was made by the appellant some time in September 2003. The fourth respondent is stated to have made
a representation dated 20-2-2003 levelling certain irregularities against the appellant in relation to sanction of certain layouts. As regards the same,
the fourth respondent approached this Court by way of Writ Petition in W.P. No. 17594 of 2003 which came to be disposed of on 26-06-2003,
directing the first respondent and the Planning Officer, District Town Planning Department, Namakkal to dispose of his representation on merits
within a stipulated time limit. Thereafter, the allegation levelled against the appellant was stated to have been probed into by the first respondent.
As a follow up of the said proceedings, the first respondent issued a notice u/s 205(1 )(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 in reference
No. 4670/2003/PA3 dated 30-08-2003 calling upon the appellant to offer her explanation with regard to certain omissions committed by her in
the course of her tenure as President of Muthukalipatti village Panchayat. Five such omissions were levelled against the appellant in the said show
cause notice.
The appellant is stated to have submitted her explanation to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, the first respondent directed the third
respondent to convene the meeting of Muthukalipatti village Panchayat to place the proposal before the Panchayat for the removal of the petitioner
from the post of President and to ascertain the views of the Panchayat. By a notice dated 17-12-2003, the third respondent is stated to have
convened a meeting of the Panchayat to be held on 31-12-2003. It was at that stage, the appellant approached this Court by filing the present
Writ Petition in W.P. No. 38589 of 2003 challenging the notice of the first respondent dated 30-08-2003 and the consequential notice issued by
the third respondent dated 17-12-2003. There was an interim injunction in operation restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from holding the Panchayat
council meeting as scheduled in the notice dated 17-12-2003. Ultimately, the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition itself.
When this Writ Appeal was preferred, taking note of the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader that no action would be
taken for two weeks within which time, he wanted to file the counter, the matter was adjourned by two weeks for filing counter, i.e. on 10-08-
2004. It transpires that after the dismissal of the Writ Petition on 17-06-2004, the third respondent held the meeting of the Panchayat on 28-07-
2004 for ascertaining the views of the Panchayat and also submitted the report. Thereafter, the first respondent seemed to have passed final orders
removing the appellant from the post of President of Muthukalipatti village. It was also notified in the Gazettee dated 08-09-2004. However, in
view of the undertaking given by the learned Special Government Pleader before this Court on 10-08-2004, by a subsequent order dated 11-10-
2004, the first respondent cancelled his earlier order of removal issued on 18-08-2004 and notified on 08-09-2004.
In the above said background, we considered the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Special
Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and Ms. R. Vaigai learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9.
The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the various allegations levelled against the appellant were only procedural defects
which can always be regularised at the intervention of the State Government and therefore, no proceedings can be taken for such procedural
defects in a proceedings u/s 205 of the Act.
Certain other defects were also pointed out at the instance of the appellant in regard to the issuance of the notice u/s 205 of the Act. The learned
counsel for the appellant also placed heavy reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of Orissa High Court as well as Andhra Pradesh High
Court, reported in ""AIR 1988 Orissa 150 (Baikunthannath Mohanty versus State Of Orissa & Others)"" and ""1999(5) ALT 535 (D.B.) (D. Sathi
Reddy Versus Commissioner, Panchayat Raj, A.P., Hyderabad & others) in support of his submissions.
As against the above submissions, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 as well as Ms. R. Vaigai, learned
counsel for the respondents 4 to 9, would contend that the challenge as made by the appellant to the present proceedings issued u/s 205 is not
maintainable and if at all, the ultimate order of the first respondent goes against the appellant, thereafter the appellant could work out her remedy as
provided under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and not by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance was
placed upon ""2001(10) SCC 639 (Ulagappa and others versus Divisional Commissioner, Mysore & Others)'', Executive Engineer, Bihar State
Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, and ""AIR 2004 SC 1467 (Special Director & Another Versus Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse &
Another)"" in support of their submissions that the Writ Petition against the show cause notice cannot be maintained.
Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and the facts narrated above, we are also of the view that the Writ Petition as against
the impugned proceedings dated 30-08-2003 and the consequential notice dated 17-12-2003 cannot be maintained. u/s 205 of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Act, 1994, procedure has been prescribed as to how the first respondent as the Inspector of Panchayats can resort to the removal of a
President. u/s 205(11), the Inspector of Panchayats has been empowered to consider the views of the village panchayat and take a decision as to
either remove the President from office by notification with effect from a date to be specified therein or drop further action. u/s 205 (12), the State
Government has been invested with the power to cancel any notification issued under sub-section (11) and pending its final decision, the State
Government has also been empowered to postpone the date specified in the notification issued u/s 205(11) removing the President from its Office.
Therefore, it is an uncontroverted legal position that in the event of any adverse order being passed against the appellant removing her from the
post of President by the first respondent in exercise of powers vested in him u/s 205(11), the appellant has got an efficacious alternate remedy
before the State Government u/s 205(12) under which the appellant can even ask the State Government to postpone the date by which such
removal will take effect as per the notification that may be issued at the instance of the first respondent.
As far as the grounds of attack raised by the appellant, we find that the substantial ground is the one, namely, that all the allegations levelled
against the appellant in the show cause notice dated 30-08-2003 were all only procedural defects which can always be regularised by the State
Government. When such is the stand of the appellant, we are of the view that it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to intervene with the
impugned proceedings in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This court has already held in the
Judgment reported in ""2005 Writ L.R.20 (Tmt. R. Kasiammal versus The District Collector Cum Inspector Of Panchayats, Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar And Others)"" wherein, while dealing with an identical situation in respect of a notice convening the meeting for removal of the
President u/s 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, has held as under in paragraph 3:
We are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case since as yet no adverse order has been passed
against the appellant at all and hence the writ petition was premature. For removing the President of a village panchayat, the Act provides for
certain modalities. u/s 205(10) of the Act a meeting of the village panchayat has to be held and its views have to be recorded in the minutes and a
copy of the minutes has to be forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Inspector. Thereafter, u/s 205(11), the Inspector, after considering the views of
the village panchayat, in his discretion, may either remove the President from his office of drop further action. As yet even the meeting of the village
panchayat has not been held. In such meeting, the members of the village panchayat may express views in favour of the appellant, if he has done
good deeds to the villagers, but if he has not done anything in the capacity as President of the village panchayat for the betterment of the villagers, it
is very likely that the panchayat may express adverse opinion against him. At present, the matter is premature and calls for no interference. Hence
the writ appeal is dismissed. Connected WAMP No. 7771 of 2004 is closed.
The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents reported in Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh
Kumar Singh and others, and "" The Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, also support the above proposition of
law. In "" ( Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under
in para 10:-
We are concerned in this case, with the entertainment of the Writ Petition against a show cause notice issued by a competent statutory
authority. It should be borne in mind that there is no attack against the vires of the statutory provisions governing the matter. No question of
infringement of any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is alleged or proved. It cannot be said that Ext.P-4 notice is ex facie a ""nullity
or totally ""without jurisdiction"" in the traditional sense of that expression - that is to say, that even the commencement or initiation of the
proceedings, on the face of it and without anything more, is totally unauthorised. In such a case, for entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India against a show -cause notice, at that stage, it should be shown that the authority has no power or jurisdiction to enter upon
the enquiry in question. In all other cases, it is only appropriate that the party should avail of the alternate remedy and show cause against the same
before the authority concerned and take up the objection regarding jurisdiction also, then. In the event of an adverse decision, it will certainly be
open to him, to assail the same either in appeal or revision, as the case maybe, or in appropriate cases, by Invoking the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
In "" The Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under in para 5:-
This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show
cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the
parties. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally nonest in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the
authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine and the writ petitioner
should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition, Whether the show cause
notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be
adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an
interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of
powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is
accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted.
In the light of the overwhelming decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench Judgment of this Court referred to above,
we do not find any scope to rely on the two Division Bench Judgments of the Orissa High Court as well as that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. The other decisions cited on behalf of the appellant are not germane to the legal issue involved
in this case and therefore, the same are not helpful to the appellant. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge
in holding that it was highly premature at this stage for this Court to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the respondents 1 to 3. We find no
merit in this Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. All interim Orders stand vacated and WAMP is closed. No costs.