- (1.)THE writ petition challenges the G. O. (D)No. 426, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP2) Department, dated 12. 9. 2007 passed by the first respondent. By the said impugned Order, the Government by exercise of its power under Section 40-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") and accepting the resolution passed by the Councillors of Pallipattu Town Panchayat by way of "no Confidence Motion" against the petitioner, being the President directs the removal of the writ petitioner as Chairman of Pallipattu Town Panchayat, Tiruvellur District from the office of the Chairman of the said Town Panchayat. Originally the petitioner was elected as a Ward Councillor of No. 1, Pallipattu Town Panchayat and thereafter, she was elected by majority of ward members as Town Panchayat President, which was allowed for ladies quota on 28. 10. 2006. There are totally 15 members in the Town Panchayat.
(2.)IT is the case of the petitioner that the Vice President of the Town Panchayat in order to bring one Mrs. Usha Rani as President had obtained signatures from 10 members by threat and force and moved a No Confidence Motion by giving a letter on 21. 6. 2007. It was pursuant to the said letter stated to have been signed by 10 members, presented to the second respondent, the Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, the second respondent has issued a notice under Section 40-B of the Act intimating the members about the convening of a meeting on 4. 7. 2007. Since as required under the Act, 15 clear days notice was not there, the said meeting stood cancelled and another notice was issued by the second respondent on 3. 7. 2007 convening a meeting of the Panchayat on 19. 7. 2007. On 19. 7. 2007, the Panchayat meeting is stated to have been held and a motion for removing the petitioner from the post of President is stated to have been carried out. It was on 27. 8. 2007, the petitioner moved this Court by filing the writ petition in W. P. No. 27629 of 2007 challenging the meeting called for by the second respondent dated 3. 7. 2007 on the basis that the second meeting is not contemplated under the Act. Notice of motion was ordered by this Court on 22. 8. 2007 and an order of interim injunction passed restraining the first respondent, the State of Tamil Nadu from passing further orders pursuant to the meeting held on 19. 7. 2007 for the purpose of removal of the President of the Pallipattu Town Panchayat. Initially, the order of injunction was granted for two weeks and that was extended by another two weeks on 6. 9. 2007. On 25. 9. 2007, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to give a representation to the first respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the direction, the petitioner has given a representation to the first respondent on 8. 10. 2007 and the first respondent has not passed any order. In the meantime, the impugned G. O. , came to be passed on 12. 9. 2007 by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 40-A of the Act by accepting the resolution of the Panchayat dated 19. 7. 2007 ordering removal of the petitioner from the Chairmanship and that G. O. , is now being challenged. It is also relevant to point out that in the meantime, certain amendments were incorporated into the Act, especially relating to Section 40-A. One of the provisions of the amendment by way Ordinance is that any motion expressing want of confidence in the chairman or vice-chairman made under Section 40-A and pending before any officer, authority or the Government, as the case may be, as provided in Section 40-A, immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance, shall abate. The petitioner challenges the G. O. , mainly on the ground that the second notice issued by the second respondent on 3. 7. 2007 calling for Panchayat meeting is not contemplated under the Act. That apart, on 22. 8. 2007, when this Court has passed an order of interim injunction restraining the first respondent, the Government is not empowered in passing any further orders pursuant to the meeting of the Panchayat held on 19. 7. 2007 and particularly when the injunction was in force. It was during that time, the G. O. , came to be passed on 12. 9. 2007 and therefore, the G. O. , is to be treated as non est since the Government Order is against the order of this Court.
(3.)THE second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The main defence raised by the second respondent is that passing of the Government Order is pursuant to the resolution of the Panchayat dated 19. 7. 2007. At the time, when the meeting was called, there was no order restraining the Panchayat from proceeding with the meeting and therefore, the resolution passed by the Panchayat is deemed to be in existence and in that event, the natural consequence for the Government is to issue notification under Section 40-A (12) of the Act. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the notification and the Government Order issued by the Government.