- (1.) PANCHAYAT. Factual Matrix
(2.) THE petitioner is the Vice President of Muthurangampatti Village Panchayat Council in the District of Karur. As per Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat Act') all cheques for payment from village panchayat shall be signed jointly by the President and Vice President. According to the petitioner, he discharged his duties as Vice President in accordance with the provisions of the Panchayat Act, However, the third respondent, who is the President of the Panchayat, made a demand to sign the cheques without the support of the resolution of the Panchayat Council and in respect of certain works, which were not executed. THErefore, there were difference of opinion between the petitioner and the third respondent. While so, the power of the petitioner to sign the cheque was taken away as per the impugned order dated 19.11.2008 without notice to him. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit it, wherein it was indicated that the petitioner was indulged in delaying tactics and he never signed the cheques jointly with the President. Because of the non-cooperation of the petitioner, the panchayat administration came to a standstill, and as such, a meeting of the panchayat was held on 26.9.2008. The petitioner was also invited for the said meeting. In the panchayat meeting held on 26.9.2008, a resolution was passed to withdraw the cheque signing power of the petitioner and to assign the said power to the fourth respondent. The resolution was passed by the majority of the members of the panchayat and the same was forwarded to the second respondent for appropriate action. The second respondent on receipt of the said resolution made his recommendation to the first respondent and accordingly, the impugned order has been passed withdrawing the cheque signing powers of the petitioner.
(3.) THE third respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit, denying the contentions as found mentioned in the affidavit filed in, support of the writ petition. According to the third respondent, the notice of the panchayat meeting was served on the petitioner on 19.9.2008 and in the meeting held on 26.9.2008, the petitioner also participated and resolution was passed only in his presence. It was further stated that the intention of the petitioner was only to paralyze the working of the panchayat and as such, the panchayat union was compelled to pass a resolution, denying the petitioner of his right to sign the cheque. In such circumstances, the third respondent justified the order passed by the first respondent. Submissions:- Thiru. B. Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Government have issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.92, Rural Development (C)(III) Department, dated 26.3.1997 and as per the said Government Order, in exceptional cases, where there was adversarial relationship between the President and the Vice President, it was permissible for the panchayat by way of a resolution authorizing any other member to operate the account jointly with the President. However, for taking such decision, prior approval of the inspector of Panchayat (District Collector) was absolutely necessary. According to the learned counsel, before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit his objection and as such, the very proceeding was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel also relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Pugashendran v. B.G. Balu (2005) 1 CTC 545 : (2005) 1 MLJ 549.;