Madras High CourtK.Jaganathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 22 December, 2021Author:R. Suresh KumarBench:R.Suresh KumarW.P. No.26587 of 2021\n\n                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n\n                                                DATED: 22.12.2021\n\n                                                        CORAM\n\n                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR\n\n                                             W.P. No.26587 of 2021 and\n                                    W.M.P.Nos.28044, 28045, 28046 & 29059 of 2021\n\n                     K.Jaganathan                                                ... Petitioner\n\n                                                          Vs\n                     1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by\n                       its Secretary to Government,\n                       Rural Development Department,\n                       Fort St. George, Chennai.\n\n                     2.The Director of Rural Development and\n                       Panchayat Raj,\n                       Panagal Building, Saidapet,\n                       Chennai.\n\n                     3.The District Collector,\n                       Collectorate Buildings, Salem.\n\n                     4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n                       Salem, Suramangalam,\n                       Salem District.                                       ... Respondents\n\n                     PRAYER : Petition filed underArticle 226of the Constitution of India,\n                     praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records\n                     pertaining to the proceeding Mandhanam Na.Ka.No.2773/2021/A2 dated\n                     29.11.2021 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same as\n                     illegal, incompetent and ultra vires.\n\n                     1/22\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n                                                                                       W.P. No.26587 of 2021\n\n\n\n                                          For Petitioner     : Mr.N.R.Chandran\n                                                               Senior Counsel\n                                                               assisted by Mr.R.Kannan\n\n                                          For Respondents : Mr.V.Yamuna Devi\n                                                            Special Government Pleader\n\n                                                            ORDERThe prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorari to call for the\n\n                     records pertaining to the proceeding Mandhanam Na.Ka.No.2773/2021/\n\n                     A2 dated 29.11.2021 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the\n\n                     same.2. In respect of Panamarathupatti Panchayat Union Council,\n\n                     election was conducted on 20.12.2020 to elect 13 ward members, out of\n\n                     whom, the petitioner was elected as one of the Ward Council Member\n\n                     from the 10th ward.3. Thereafter, election was conducted on 11.01.2020 to elect the\n\n                     Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council among the elected ward\n\n                     members, wherein the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the2/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021Panchayat Union Council by getting a majority votes from the electoral\n\n                     college i.e., the elected ward members, accordingly, he has been serving\n\n                     as a Chairman of the Panchayat Union concerned.4. When that being so, according to the petitioner, a notice has\n\n                     been received by the petitioner on 18.11.2021 in proceedings Na.Ka.\n\n                     No.2773/2021/A2, under which, the 4th respondent i.e. the Revenue\n\n                     Divisional Officer, who is empowered under the provisions ofSection 212of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (in short ''the Act") has issued\n\n                     the said notice stating that, some members of the Panchayat Union\n\n                     Council had given notice expressing No Confidence against the petitioner\n\n                     along with the statement of charges and therefore, in respect of that\n\n                     statement of charges with notice for No Confidence Motion, the petitioner\n\n                     was directed to give his reply within one week period as contemplated\n\n                     underSection 212of the Act.5. On receipt of the said notice dated 18.11.2021, the petitioner had\n\n                     given reply for the alleged charges made against the petitioner. Thereafter,\n\n                     the 4th respondent issued another notice dated 29.11.2021 fixing a date3/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021for the Council meeting on 20.12.2021 at 11 a.m. to take up the No\n\n                     Confidence Motion against the petitioner and to decide the same,\n\n                     accordingly, the petitioner was directed to attend the meeting.6. Challenging the said communication dated 29.11.2021 fixing the\n\n                     meeting on 20.12.2021 to take up the No Confidence Motion, the\n\n                     petitioner moved this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.7. At the time of admission, it was submitted by the learned Senior\n\n                     Counsel Mr.N.R.Chandran assisted by the learned counsel appearing for\n\n                     the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner that, along with 18.11.2021\n\n                     notice only a notice of No Confidence Motion signed by 3 members, out\n\n                     of the 13 elected members of the Council and a statement of charges\n\n                     alone were served and if the notice for No Confidence Motion was given\n\n                     only by 3 out of 13 members, it does not meet the requirement of 3/5th of\n\n                     the sanctioned strength of the Union Council as contemplated under sub-\n\n                     section (2) ofSection 212of the Act. Therefore, on that ground the entire\n\n                     proceedings which culminated in the impugned notice for conducting the\n\n                     meeting on 20.12.2021 to take up the No Confidence Motion is vitiated.4/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 20218.Considering the said prima facie case projected by the petitioner,\n\n                     this Court by order dated 14.12.2021 has passed the following order:"Mrs.V.Yamuna      Devi,   learned    Special     Government\n                                  Pleader takes notice for the respondents.2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner\n                                  is the elected Chairman of the Panchayat Union and\n                                  against him, a no-confidence motion notice had been\n                                  given by three out of thirteen members of the Union on\n                                  03.11.2021. Thereafter on 15.11.2021, a set of charges\n                                  having been signed by eight out of thirteen members have\n                                  been given to the respondent Revenue Divisional Officer,\n                                  who, on receipt of the same, issued a notice on 18.11.2021\n                                  to the petitioner seeking explanation underSection 212(3)of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (In short 'the\n                                  Act'). In response to the same, the petitioner has given a\n                                  detailed reply on 25.11.2021. Despite the same, now the\n                                  impugned notice has been issued underSection 212(4)of\n                                  the Act, whereby a meeting has been proposed to be\n                                  conducted on 20.12.2021 to deliberate and decide the no-\n                                  confidence motion against the petitioner. Challenging the\n                                  same, the present writ petition has been filed.5/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 20213.   Heard      Mr.N.R.Chandran,   learned    Senior\n                                  Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who raised\n                                  two issues.   Firstly he said that, as per the procedure\n                                  contemplated underSection 212of the Act, especially\n                                  under sub-section(2) Written notice of intention to make\n                                  the motion, signed by members of the Panchayat Union\n                                  Council, together with a copy of the motion which is\n                                  proposed to be made and a written statement of the\n                                  charges shall be delivered in person to the Revenue\n                                  Divisional Officer.4. Here in the case in hand, a copy of the no-\n                                  confidence motion dated 22.10.2021 had been signed by\n                                  three out of thirteen members and it was given to the\n                                  Revenue Divisional Officer on 03.11.2021. Subsequently,\n                                  the person who receives the same signed it on 03.11.2021.\n                                  Thereafter, a copy of the charges signed by eight out of\n                                  thirteen members of the Panchayat Union was received\n                                  and initialled by the officer concerned of the Revenue\n                                  Divisional Office on 15.11.2021.   Therefore, the learned\n                                  Senior Counsel would invite the attention of this Court as\n                                  to the mandate given underSection 212(2), where all the\n                                  three ie., notice of intention to make the motion, copy of6/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021the motion proposed to be made and a written statement\n                                  of the charges together with a copy of the motion which is\n                                  proposed to be made, shall be delivered in person to the\n                                  Revenue Divisional Officer at once. Here in the case in\n                                  hand, this has not been done. Therefore, it is a statutory\n                                  violation especially in the context ofSection 212(2)of the\n                                  Act.5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also\n                                  invited the attention of this Court to the provisions ofSection 207of the Act, where a different procedure has\n                                  been contemplated for removal of the Chairman of\n                                  Panchayat Union. Therefore, in the present context, the\n                                  present move made by the respondent Revenue Divisional\n                                  Officer to issue a notice which is impugned herein to have\n                                  the meeting on 20.12.2021 for consideration of the no-\n                                  confidence motion given by some members of the\n                                  Panchayat Union Council is not in consonance with the\n                                  mandatory requirement under the provisions ofSection\n                                  212of the Act. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel\n                                  seeks the indulgence of this Court to interfere with the\n                                  impugned notice.6. Heard Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi, learned Special7/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021Government Pleader, who would submit that, the motion\n                                  as perSection 212(2)of the Act has to be signed by not\n                                  less than two members, whereas three members have\n                                  signed the notice dated 22.10.2021 and subsequently the\n                                  copy of the charges, which had been given along with the\n                                  said notice was signed by eight out of thirteen members.\n                                  Therefore, it satisfies the requirement underSection\n                                  212(2)and therefore there is no infirmity in the procedure\n                                  adopted by the respondent Revenue Divisional Officer in\n                                  summoning the meeting by giving the notice, which does\n                                  not warrant any interference from this Court.7. I have considered the preliminary submissions\n                                  made by the learned Senior Counsel as well as the\n                                  learned Special Government Pleader.8. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned\n                                  Senior Counsel for the petitioner, insofar as the\n                                  procedure to be adopted for moving a no-confidence\n                                  motion against the elected Chairman or Vice Chairman of\n                                  the Panchayat Union Council is concerned,Section 212(2)makes it very clear that, a motion expressing want of\n                                  confidence in the Chairman / Vice Chairman of the\n                                  Panchayat Union Counsel shall be made in accordance8/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021with the procedure laid down herein ie., the remaining\n                                  sub-sections of 212.9. In sub-section (2) it has been made clear that, the\n                                  written notice of intention to make a motion signed by not\n                                  less than 3 out of five members of the sanctioned strength\n                                  of the Panchayat Council together with a copy of the\n                                  motion and written statement of the charges against the\n                                  Chairman / Vice Chairman shall be delivered in person to\n                                  the Revenue Divisional Officer by any two of the members\n                                  of the Panchayat Union Council signing the motion.10. Here in the case in hand, the no-confidence\n                                  motion or notice of intention to make no-confidence\n                                  motion, even though was signed by three persons, the\n                                  same is dated 22.10.2021, whereas it was received by the\n                                  Revenue Divisional Office only on 03.11.2021.11. Whereas the set of charges which is otherwise\n                                  ought to have been delivered together with the notice of\n                                  no-confidence motion signed by eight out of thirteen\n                                  members, had been received by the Revenue Divisional\n                                  Office only on 15.11.2021 and this is evidenced by the\n                                  signatures or initials made by the concerned officials of9/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021the Revenue Divisional Office in those two documents.12. Therefore, it has become clear that, on the date\n                                  of delivering the notice of no-confidence motion, either on\n                                  22.10.2021 or 03.11.2021, there has been no written\n                                  statement of charges signed by the members and\n                                  moreover the written notice of intention to make the\n                                  motion should have been signed by not less than 3/5 th\n                                  members of the sanctioned strength, whereas admittedly it\n                                  was signed by only three members.13. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that,\n                                  the provisions ofSection 212(2)of the Act has been\n                                  violated in filing the no-confidence motion as well as the\n                                  written statement, which has been separately made to the\n                                  Revenue Divisional Officer.     Therefore, based on the\n                                  same, the Revenue Divisional Officer ought not to have\n                                  issued the impugned notice invoking sub-section (4) ofSection 212.14. In view of this prima facie case, there shall be\n                                  an order of interim stay against the impugned order. Post\n                                  the matter after four weeks."10/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 20219. However, subsequently to vacate the said order, a vacate stay\n\n                     petition has been filed by the respondents, especially the 4th respondent\n\n                     in W.M.P.No.29059 of 2021. In view of the said vacate stay petition\n\n                     having been filed, at the request of the respondents, this writ petition is\n\n                     taken up for hearing today.10. The learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.R.Kannan, learned\n\n                     counsel appearing for the petitioner has reiterated what have been stated\n\n                     by them in the earlier hearing and they asserted that, along with the notice\n\n                     dated 18.11.2021, only notice for No Confidence Motion given by 3\n\n                     members of 13 sanctioned strength of the Panchayat Union Council and\n\n                     the statement of charges alone had been served and if it is a notice for No\n\n                     Confidence Motion signed by only 3 members, it does not meet the\n\n                     requirement of sub-section (2) ofSection 212of the Act. Therefore, the\n\n                     impugned notice fixing the meeting to be held on 20.12.2021, as has been\n\n                     stayed by this Court, is to be quashed, he contended.11. However, Mr.V.Yamuna Devi, learned Special Government11/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021Pleader appearing for the respondents having relied upon some of the\n\n                     documents and also relied upon the original file produced before this\n\n                     Court in this regard would contend that, no doubt, the 3 members of the\n\n                     13 sanctioned strength had given a notice for No Confidence Motion\n\n                     dated 22.10.2021 to the office of the 4th respondent and since the said\n\n                     notice does not meet the requirement of 3/5th of the total members which\n\n                     is mandatory, the same was rejected by the 4th respondent in the said\n\n                     motion notice itself on 03.11.2021.12. Thereafter, 8 out of 13 members have given notice for No\n\n                     Confidence Motion on 15.11.2021 along with the copy of the charges\n\n                     which in fact had already been given.13. The said notice for No Confidence Motion along with the\n\n                     statement of charges dated 15.11.2021 having been considered by the 4th\n\n                     respondent, he decided to proceed further in accordance with the\n\n                     procedure established underSection 212of the Act.14. Accordingly, on 18.11.2021 a notice has been issued to the12/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021petitioner under sub-section (3) ofSection 212requiring the petitioner to\n\n                     give a reply to the show cause within 7 days.15. In this context, it is the vehement contention of the learned\n\n                     Special Government Pleader that, along with the notice dated 18.11.2021,\n\n                     the notice of No Confidence Motion given by 8 members dated\n\n                     15.11.2021 had been annexed and to establish the said fact in the very\n\n                     reference column itself in the notice dated 18.11.2021, it has been\n\n                     mentioned that the 15.11.2021 petition i.e. notice for No Confidence\n\n                     Motion given by the 8 members have been annexed.16. Therefore, by relying upon this communication dated\n\n                     18.11.2021, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that,\n\n                     15.11.2021 notice given by 8 members to the Revenue Divisional Officer\n\n                     since had been annexed along with the 18.11.2021 notice, the plea now\n\n                     raised by the petitioner is untenable.17. Moreover, the learned Special Government Pleader would\n\n                     further submit that, in response to the 18.11.2021 notice in fact the\n\n                     petitioner has chosen to give reply for each of the charges levelled against13/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021him wherein he has not taken any defence to state that, along with\n\n                     18.11.2021 notice, the notice for No Confidence Motion given by 8\n\n                     members dated 15.11.2021 has not been annexed. Therefore, it goes\n\n                     without saying that, the notice dated 18.11.2021 carries the 15.11.2021\n\n                     notice of No Confidence Motion along with the statement of charges.\n\n                     Therefore, the procedure contemplated under sub-section (2) and (3) ofSection 212of the Act, since has been complied with, the ground urged\n\n                     by the petitioner is totally unjustifiable and untenable. Therefore, on that\n\n                     ground, no indulgence can be shown against the move made by the 4th\n\n                     respondent to proceed with the No Confidence Motion proceedings, for\n\n                     which, the meeting was already fixed on 20.12.2021.18. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned\n\n                     counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed\n\n                     before this Court.19. After having gone through the materials placed before this\n\n                     Court and having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel\n\n                     appearing for both sides, this Court finds that, the controversy arises in14/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021this writ petition is in very narrow compass.20. The petitioner has accepted the receipt of notice dated\n\n                     18.11.2021. Therefore, there can be no controversy on that aspect.\n\n                     However, the controversy arises, where, along with 18.11.2021 notice, it\n\n                     is the case of the petitioner that, only the 22.10.2021 notice which was\n\n                     received by the Revenue Divisional Office on 03.11.2021 alone was\n\n                     annexed along with the statement of charges, but not the notice of 8\n\n                     members signed dated 15.11.2021.21. In this regard, though it was vehemently contended on the part\n\n                     of the respondents by the learned Special Government Pleader that, the\n\n                     15.11.2021 notice of No Confidence Motion signed by 8 members have\n\n                     been annexed along with the notice dated 18.11.2021, it is oath against\n\n                     the oath. Since the provision underSection 212of the Tamil Nadu\n\n                     Panchayats Act has to be strictly followed because an elected\n\n                     representative of the people is to be removed from the post such a\n\n                     procedure contemplated underSection 212of the Act has to be strictly\n\n                     complied with.15/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 202122. When that being the position, in sub-section (3) ofSection 212,\n\n                     it has been mandated that, a copy of the statement of charges along with\n\n                     the motion shall be caused to be delivered to the concerned Chairman or\n\n                     the Vice Chairman by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Chairman\n\n                     or the Vice Chairman shall be required to give a statement in reply to the\n\n                     charges within a week of the receipt of the motion.23. Therefore, as per the said mandatory requirement under sub-\n\n                     section (3) of Section 212, a statement of charges along with the motion\n\n                     shall be caused to be delivered to the Chairman or Vice Chairman as the\n\n                     case may be.24. Here since it is the case of the petitioner that, along with the\n\n                     notice dated 18.11.2021 only the 3 members notice dated 22.10.2021 has\n\n                     been served. In order to substantiate this contention, the petitioner has\n\n                     filed the said document in his typed set of papers which shows that the\n\n                     said document signed by 3 members dated 22.10.2021 is having the seal\n\n                     of the 4th respondent office dated 12.11.2021.16/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 202125. Whereas it is the stand of the respondents that, 22.10.2021\n\n                     notice signed by 3 persons given to the 4th respondent office was rejected\n\n                     on 03.11.2021.26. Had it been rejected on 03.11.2021, on what reason the official\n\n                     seal of the 4th respondent is carried in the said communication, is not\n\n                     known to this Court.27. Be that as it may, now on 15.11.2021, 8 out of 13 members\n\n                     have given the notice signed by them and that is available in the original\n\n                     file and a copy of the same also has been filed in the typed set of papers\n\n                     by the respondents.28. Based on this 15.11.2021 notice and the statement of charges,\n\n                     the 4th respondent can very well proceed further as contemplated underSection 212of the Act and accordingly, a fresh notice along with\n\n                     15.11.2021 notice for No Confidence Motion given by 8 members and a\n\n                     statement of charges once again be served on the petitioner under sub-\n\n                     section (3) ofSection 212requiring him to give reply within 7 days time\n\n                     and thereafter, as contemplated under the other sub-sections of Section17/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021212, it is open to the 4th respondent to proceed to fix a meeting to\n\n                     transact the business with regard to the No Confidence Motion.29. For such a course of action to be undertaken by the 4th\n\n                     respondent, there is absolutely no impediment under law especially in the\n\n                     context ofSection 212of the Act.30. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of\n\n                     this writ petition with the following orders:(i)   That   the   impugned   communication      dated\n\n                                  29.11.2021, for the aforestated reasons and discussions, is\n\n                                  hereby quashed.(ii) As a sequel, it is open to the 4th respondent to\n\n                                  issue a fresh notice under sub-section (3) ofSection 212of\n\n                                  the Act along with the copy of the proposed resolution/\n\n                                  notice for No Confidence signed by 8 Council members of\n\n                                  the Panchayat Union Council dated 15.11.2021 and also the\n\n                                  copy of the charges be served on the petitioner through\n\n                                  registered post with acknowledgment due requiring him to18/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021give reply for such notice within a period of 7 days.(iii) Thereafter, with or without the reply of the\n\n                                  petitioner, a further notice fixing a date for meeting can be\n\n                                  issued by the 4th respondent to take up for consideration of\n\n                                  the proposed No Confidence Motion. On that meeting, it\n\n                                  shall be transacted and decided depending upon the\n\n                                  majority being mustered by both sides. This is what exactly\n\n                                  since has been contemplated underSection 212, referred to\n\n                                  above, the said procedure can be followed in accordance\n\n                                  withe the said provision.31. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition is\n\n                     disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.\n\n                     Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.22.12.2021\n\n                     Index : Yes / No\n\n                     Speaking Order : Yes / No19/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021Note: Issue the order copy on 27.12.2021\n                     Sgl20/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021To1.Secretary to Government,\n                       The State of Tamil Nadu\n                       Rural Development Department,\n                       Fort St. George, Chennai.2.The Director of Rural Development and\n                       Panchayat Raj,\n                       Panagal Building, Saidapet,\n                       Chennai.3.The District Collector,\n                       Collectorate Buildings, Salem.4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n                       Salem, Suramangalam,\n                       Salem District.5.The Government Advocate,\n                       High Court, Madras.21/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P. No.26587 of 2021R. SURESH KUMAR, J.SglW.P. No.26587 of 202122.12.202122/22https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis