- (1.) BY consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
(2.) PRAYER in the writ petition is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 22.11.2007 cancelling the disqualification of respondents 4 to 7 as Panchayat Board member of Thiruchikuppam Panchayat of Polur Panchayat Union. The case of the petitioner, who is the President of the said Village Panchayat is that there are nine elected ward Councillors besides the President in the Village Panchayat. Respondents 4 to 7 are elected Ward Members. Respondents 4 to 7, after receiving the agenda for the meeting to be held on 9.3.2007, 13.4.2007 and 11.5.2007, failed to attend three consecutive meetings. Panchayat Board issued show cause notice as to why they shall not be disqualified by a resolution. The said notice was attempted to be served on 12.6.2007, however, respondents 4 to 7 refused to receive the same. On the same day, the President also attempted to serve the notice. Still they refused to receive the same. Hence the President affixed the notice on the wall of the respective member's house on 12.6.2007. Thereafter, a resolution was passed on 11.7.2007 by resolution No. 31. Respondents 4 to 7 also received the agenda for the said resolution. On 1.7.2007, still they have not attended the meeting on 11.7.2007. Respondents 4 to 7 also failed to approach the Judicial Authority even two months from the date of knowledge of the resolution passed against the respondents. Hence according to the petitioner, the resolution passed disqualifying the respondents 4 to 7 becomes final. The said resolution is now cancelled by the second respondent under Section 202(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, and according to the petitioner, second respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the said cancellation order. The said order is challenged on various grounds in this writ petition, particularly on the ground that procedures contemplated under Section 202(2) of the Act is not followed and the Inspector of Panchayats alone is competent to cancel the resolution as per Section 202(1)(ii). The respondents 4 to 7 filed counter affidavit by contending that by G.O. Ms. No. 264, the Government has delegated the power of the Inspector of Panchayats and the Assistant Director of Panchayats has got jurisdiction and therefore the second respondent being the competent authority is empowered to pass the impugned order cancelling the disqualification of the respondents 4 to 7.
(3.) THE learned counsel relied on Section 218 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, which deals with delegation of powers. As per Section 218(2) the Inspector or the Collector may by notification authorise any officer not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer to exercise the powers and according to the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7, the second respondent was authorised by the first respondent and who in turn authorised the third respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 202(3) pursuant to which the third respondent issued notice to the petitioner and also to the respondents 4 to 7 and after perusal of the records he has submitted a report to the second respondent and the second respondent based on the said enquiry report passed the impugned order and the same is just and proper. The learned counsel for other respondents also made submissions on the same line.;