V SETHURAMAN Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been directed against the impugned G.O.(D) No.312, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-4) Department dated 3.7.2013 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai, to quash the same as illegal, with a consequential direction to the first respondent to notify the removal of the Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union under Section 212(13) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 on the basis of the report dated 20.3.2013 sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, the third respondent herein under Section 212(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Usilampatti Panchayat Union consists of 13 wards and all the ward members of the said panchayat were elected on the last election held on 29.10.2011. Mr.T.R.Paulpandi, after having contested for the post of Chairmanship, was elected as the Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union. The crux of the dispute, as pleaded by the learned counsel, is that the Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union did not care about the welfare of the general public. As he acted against the interest of the general public and other elected members, a representation was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai the third respondent herein to take appropriate action against the Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent failed to take action against the said Chairman Mr.T.R.Paulpandi. When a representation was given to the third respondent on 4.2.2013 in terms of Section 212(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act (for short, "the Act"), on 14.2.2013, the third respondent sent a copy of the charges along with the motion to the Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union asking him to give a statement of reply to the charges within a week from the date of receipt of the notice in terms of Section 212(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. On receipt of the said notice, the Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union also submitted his explanation before the third respondent on 25.2.2013. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a notice dated 2.3.2013 to all the councillors of Usilampatti Panchayat Union, in terms of Section 212(4) of the Act, informing them about the meeting scheduled to be held on 28.3.2013, to decide the issue of no confidence motion against the Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union. However, on receipt of the said notice, Mr.T.R.Paulpandi, Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union, filed Writ Petition (MD) No.4681 of 2013 challenging the notice dated 2.3.2013, to quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on his petitions dated 28.12.2012 and 26.2.2013 given under Section 204(4) of the Act, as though there was no co-operation by the members with the Chairman. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that since no interim order was passed restraining the third respondent from conducting the meeting scheduled to be held on 28.3.2013, the third respondent conducted the meeting for no confidence motion on 28.3.2013 at 12.00 noon and all the councillors including the Chairman and the Vice Chairman attended the meeting at the fourth respondent's office. However, after the meeting started, the Chairman Mr.T.R.Paulpandi and one Mrs.M.Petchiammal, Councillor of Ward No.11, raised objections to conduct the said meeting on the ground that the writ petition filed by the Chairman was pending before the High Court. Although the third respondent asked them to produce the copy of the interim order not to proceed with the meeting, no such interim order was produced by the Chairman. Hence, the third respondent started the proceedings as per his notice. When the meeting started, the third respondent read out the charges against the Chairman and also the reply given by him and thereupon, the third respondent asked all the councillors as to whether they accepted the reply given by the Chairman or not. In reply, the councillors gave their reply stating that they were not satisfied with the reply given by the Chairman. Only thereafter, the third respondent recorded the same in the minutes book and moved the no confidence motion and also informed the councillors that they can show of their hands, if they oppose the no confidence motion. But none of the members raised their hands. Again the third respondent informed the councillors that they can show of their hands, if they support the no confidence motion. For this, all the 11 councillors had shown their hands in support of the no confidence motion. Subsequently, the third respondent issued two different kinds of forms to all the councillors, the first form for opposing the no confidence motion and the second form for supporting the no confidence motion. In continuation thereof, the third respondent asked the councillors to fill up any one of the forms and put their signature according to their choice.

(3.) Continuing his arguments, the learned counsel submitted that all the 11 councillors filled up their forms supporting the no confidence motion and put their signature and thereby the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer adopted both the methods, namely, for show of their hands and for filling up of the prescribed forms for voting. By this process, the no confidence motion against the Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union was passed. After the proceedings were over, as per Section 212(12), the third respondent sent a copy of the minutes of the meeting together with a copy of the motion along with the result of the meeting held on 28.3.2013 to the Government. At this stage, he pleaded, on receipt of the minutes of the meeting and the result of voting, the Government shall notify the removal of the said Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union. But, unfortunately, till 18.5.2013, the removal of Chairman was not notified by the first respondent herein. Thereafter, after waiting for two months, the petitioner sent a representation dated 18.5.2013 to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders under sub-section (13) of Section 212 of the Act to notify the removal of Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union. But again the first respondent failed to discharge the duties cast upon him. Moreover, no welfare activities, even sanitary works, were done in the panchayat in view of the legal deadlock, namely, holding of no confidence motion against the Chairman. In view of the aforesaid stalemate created affecting the welfare activities, W.P.(MD) No.9780 of 2013 was filed for a mandamus to direct the first respondent to notify the removal of the said Mr.T.R.Paulpandi from the post of Chairman of Usilampatti Panchayat Union based on the report sent by the third respondent on 28.3.2013 with regard to the no confidence motion along with the representation dated 18.5.2013 sent by the petitioner. When the said writ petition came up for hearing on 19.6.2013, this Court, after hearing both sides, directed the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation within a period of five weeks. Finally, pursuant to the order dated 19.6.2013 passed by this Court, the first respondent passed the impugned order in G.O.(D) No.312, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-4) Department dated 3.7.2013.