This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 10.09.2009, and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 14.11.2009.
2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the councillors are not co-operating with the petitioner. In spite of his request to them to attend the council meetings, they have not been participating in the meetings. In fact, the petitioner had sent several notices, requesting the councillors to attend the meeting.
3. It is also contended that, even though, the meetings were held, on 18.08.2008, 27.08.2008, 20.10.2008 and 21.11.2008, only the president and four other councillors had attended the meetings. In such circumstances, the first respondent had stated in the impugned notice, dated 10.09.2009, that a recommendation would be made to the Government to take appropriate action against the erring councillors, by invoking Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had stated that the first respondent has issued the impugned notice, dated 10.09.2009, since no meeting had been conducted for the last six months. Even during the meetings held on, 18.08.2008, 27.08.2008, 20.10.2008 and 21.11.2008, only the president and four other councilors had attended the meetings. In such circumstances, since no welfare measure could be implemented, a notice had been sent to the petitioner stating that if a meeting is not held, as per the law, a recommendation would be made to the State Government to take appropriate action, in accordance with Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.
4. In view of the averments, made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere in the impugned notice issued by the first respondent, dated 10.09.2009. The said notice is only an intimation to the petitioner that if a meeting is not held, as per law, a recommendation would be made to the State Government to take appropriate action, in accordance with Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Further, the petitioner has not shown as to how he is aggrieved by the notice, dated 10.09.2009, issued by the first respondent. Further, the writ petition has been filed only on the ground of an apprehension that action would be taken against the petitioner, if the meetings are not held, as per the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920
5. In such circumstances, since the writ petition is devoid of merits, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
cs To
1.The District Collector cum Town Inspector of Panchayat, Kanyakumari District,Kanyakumari.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Nagercoil,Kanyakumari District.
3.The Executive Officer, Thingal Nagar, Town Panchayat, Naiyur Post, Kanyakumari District.