By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 21.11.2007, in and by which the petitioner's power to sign the cheques as joint signatory has been cancelled.
3. According to the petitioner, he is the Vice-President of Kovilur Village Panchayat consisting of nine members besides the President. He was elected as Vice-President on 28.10.2007 and he claims that the 2nd respondent, namely the President of the Panchayat has not discharged his functions properly and has not properly conducted meetings, which resulted in a stand off between the President and six members of the Panchayat, who had written to the 1st respondent as early as on 07.05.2007. The Assistant Director of the Panchayat held a meeting of all the members of the Panchayat at his office on 19.06.2007. While that being the position, finding that there was no action, the second respondent issued a notice to all the members of the Panchayat intimating that an urgent meeting has to be held on 19.09.2007 at 11.00 am in the Panchayat office with an agenda to take away the cheque signing power from the petitioner and vest the same with the 3rd respondent, Smt.Yasodha. The petitioner and five other members of the Panchayat were waiting at the office of the Panchayat from 11.00 am to 1.30pm. The President did not attend the meeting, but, on the same day, i.e. on 19.09.2007, they have informed the 1st respondent of the happening and the non-convening of the meeting on the said date.
4. The Assistant Director of Panchayats convened a meeting of the members and the President on 17.10.2007. In the said meeting, the petitioner and other members pointed out that there was no meeting on 19.09.2007 and therefore, any resolution said to have been passed on 19.09.2007 is invalid. However, the first respondent, by its impugned order dated 21.11.2007 approved the resolution dated 19.09.2007 without giving an opportunity of hearing before passing the approval of the said resolution. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the proceedings of the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent has chosen to approve the resolution allegedly passed at a meeting which never took place, without furnishing a copy of the report dated 26.09.2007 referred to by the first respondent, without affording an opportunity of hearing before approving the resolution.
5. The 2nd respondent has filed counter along with the Vacate Stay Petition and has submitted that the petitioner is one of the ward members of Koviloor Village Panchayat and was elected as Vice President. As an executive authority of the Village Panchayat, he has discharged his duties and responsibilities as laid down under Section 84 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). According to the 2nd respondent, the meetings of the Panchayat were not properly conducted. The dates on which the Panchayat meetings were conducted, date on which meeting intimation sent, coram of the meeting, number of coram attended, number of resolutions approved are stated in the counter. Besides the Panchayat meetings, the said Panchayat President has organised Gramasabhas and special Gramasabhas as per the G.Os. and he has not abused his powers and he has discharged his duties and responsibilities.
5a. The petitioner, as Vice President of a Village Panchayat, as reported has refused to sign over in the agenda served for the Panchayat meeting dated 13.09.2007 and the petitioner having much responsibility than the other ward members had not attended the Panchayat meetings organised and conducted by the Executive Authority several times and it shows his negligence. The petitioner is a second signatory in the cheques drawn for the maintenance of water supply assets, HP spares wages to Village Development Plan, Law charges vide cheque Nos.422018, 422019, 422020, 884327 drawn on 17.07.2007 and the cheque numbers from 884332 to 884339 drawn on 11.09.2007 were not signed by the petitioner for a long time, which shows his non-co-operation.
5b. The Assistant Director of Rural Development (Panchayats), Dharmapuri has conducted an enquiry on 19.06.2007 at his office on the petitions filed by the petitioner. All the ward members including the petitioner and the Panchayat President have attended the enquiry and at the end of the meeting, they have declared that they will render entire co-operation for the smooth functioning of the said Village Panchayat without any hindrance in future. The 2nd respondent, pursuant to the proceedings of the Director of Rural Development, Chennai dated 26.08.2002 has taken action for running smooth administration of Koviloor Village Panchayat in a special meeting convened on 19.09.2007 and has resolved to select Tmt.S.Yasodha, the 1st Ward member for the second signatory withdrawing the 2nd signatory power from the inactive Vice President, M.Ganapathy. The petitioner and five other members who have refused to sign even the agenda served for the proposed meeting dated 19.09.2007 did not turn up to the special meeting conducted by the Koviloor Village Panchayat on the stipulated date.
5c. The Panchayat, in its Resolution No.1 dated 19.09.2007 has approved to hold the powers of the second signatory from the petitioner and recommended the 3rd respondent viz., Tmt.S.Yasodha, another ward member and sought orders from the Inspector of Panchayat and the Collector for the second signatory and the same was forwarded by the Block Development Officer (VP) Karimangalam, vide Lr.No.2920/07/E2 dated 26.09.2007 to the Inspector of Panchayat for according necessary permission as per the said Government Order. Accordingly, the 1st respondent, Inspector of Panchayat and the Collector, Dharmapuri issued orders according permission to Koviloor Village Panchayat to allow Tmt.S.Yasodha for the second signatory in its order dated 21.11.2007, keeping in mind the interest of the public of the Village Panchayat. The said order is challenged in the present writ petition.
6. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvi, learned counsel for the second respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the District Collector, who is the Inspector of Panchayat, before passing the impugned order has to apply his mind and there must be an opportunity of hearing and his conclusion should be based on an independent decision. He also contended that the Collector has passed the order mechanically. Learned counsel has relied on a Division Bench decision of this court reported in 2005 (I) L.W. 506 in the case of Pugazhendran, President, Brammapuram Village Panchayat vs. B.G. Balu and others. Relevant portion of the said decision would read thus:
"In the present case, a perusal of the order of the District Collector, Vellore (Inspector of Panchayats, Vellore) dated 07.11.2002 cancelling the power of the Vice President to sign the panchayat's cheques as joint signatory, shows that the District Collector has merely acted on the recommendation of the Block Development Officer, Katpadi Panchayat Union, and he has not applied his mind independently to the facts of the case, and he has not come to any independent conclusion that the refusal to sign cheques by the Vice President was mala fide or for ulterior motives. The District Collector, Vellore without issuing notice to the petitioner appears to have mechanically accepted the report of the Block Development Officer, Katpadi Panchayat Union, which in our opinion was not proper. "
8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there was a meeting held by the Assistant Director of Panchayat and in that meeting, the petitioner has been given an opportunity. Therefore, the first respondent has taken the same into consideration and has passed the order.
9. I have heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material records and the relevant provisions.
10. A paramount question that arises for consideration in this case is that whether there was an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the District Collector, who happened to be the Inspector of Panchayat, the first respondent herein, before passing the impugned order. It is seen that the petitioner is a Vice President having power to sign the cheques as a second signatory and there were certain transactions and there was a stand off between the President and others. Therefore, a petition was made based on which a meeting has to be held. It appears that a meeting was held and a resolution was passed and that resolution has been sent to the first respondent for approval.
11. A perusal of the impugned proceedings would reveal that there is a reference of recommendation of the Block Development Officer, the resolution of the Panchayat dated 19.09.2007 and the Report of the Ward members and also the reference to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 26.08.2007; but, it appears that there is no reference of the meeting of the Assistant Director or about the enquiry held on 03.10.1997. In the absence of any such reference by the first respondent, it cannot be construed that the first respondent has taken note of the Assistant Director's proceedings about the conduct of enquiry and meeting and therefore, an opportunity of hearing before passing the order has to be given to the petitioner and without doing so, the District Collector, who happens to be the Inspector of Panchayats has passed the impugned order mechanically and he has not arrived at the conclusion independently.
12. This court in many of its decisions has settled the principle that before cancellation of power of the Vice President to sign the cheques as a joint signatory, the District Collector has to act on the recommendation of the Block Development Officer and he has to apply his mind independently to the facts of the case to arrive at an unconventional conclusion. In the case on hand, the District Collector, who is the Inspector of Panchayat has to come out with an independent conclusion as to whether the resolution was passed in accordance with law and he has to apply his mind to arrive at a reasonable conclusion after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is seen that the District Collector has not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before approving the resolution recommended by the Panchayat. Therefore, there is violation of the principles of natural justice.
13. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is not sustainable and therefore, it is set aside. However, considering the circumstances, the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.
abe To :
The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat, Dharmapuri District