Smt. R. Kasiammal vs The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayats, Rajapalayam Panchayat Union and Tahsildar

Markandey Katju, C.J.—This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 1-11-2004.

The writ-Petitioner is the President of the Sundararajapuram Village Panchayat and a panchayat meeting has been convened u/s 205(3) of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Act, 1994 (in short ''the Act''). The Petitioner challenged the notice convening the meeting but the writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge and hence this appeal.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. We are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case. It is well-settled that writ jurisdiction is ''discretionary jurisdiction''. Hence, even if there is violation of law, the High Court is not bound to interfere. The Supreme Court in Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, held as under:

Issuance of a writ of Certiorari is a discretionary remedy [See Champalal Binani Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal and Others, ]. The High Court and consequently this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order although it would be lawful to do so. In a given case, the High Court or this Court may refuse to extend the benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant. Furthermore, this Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India which need not be exercised in a case where the impugned judgment is found to be erroneous if by reason thereof substantial justice is being done. [See S.D.S. Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. Jay Contained Services Company Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.]. Such relief can be denied inter alia when it would be opposed to public policy or in a case where quashing of an illegal order would revive another illegal one. This Court also in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is entitled to pass such order which will be complete justice to the parties.

(emphasis supplied)

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 or 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.