S KARUPPASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner is a sitting councilor of Theni-Allinagaram Municipality. On 19.07.2006 an auction was conducted by the said Municipality to lease out the vacant site to third parties. In the said auction, benamies of the fifth respondent/Vice President, Theni-Allinagaram Municipality participated in the auction. Of-course the said auction was cancelled by the Municipality for want of permission from the second respondent. In the auction for vacant site measuring 9.9 feet X 8.6 feet, the fifth respondent's son E.Ravikumar participated and he was selected as the highest bidder in the said auction. In yet another auction for vacant site measuring 10 feet X 8.6 feet, the fifth respondent himself participated, though there is a prohibition that a Vice Chairman of Municipality should not participate in any auction, tender or any contract floated by the Municipality. Along with the fifth respondent his son E.Ravikumar also participated in the said auction.

(2.) It is further contended by the petitioner that the participation of the benamies of the fifth respondent, son of the fifth respondent and the fifth respondent himself would go to show that the fifth respondent misused his power and misappropriated the funds of the Municipality and thereby caused loss to it. As a result of which the fifth respondent is liable to be expelled from his post under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The son of the petitioner had sublet the premises which he got under auction. The lessees violated the rules and provisions of the Act only with the help of the fourth and fifth respondents.

(3.) It is further contended by the petitioner that he gave a representation on 20.09.2008 to the first respondent to take action against the fourth and fifth respondents under Section 40 of the Act. As he had not disposed of the said representation, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.9491 of 2008, wherein a direction was issued to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same on merits, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner would allege that the order passed by the first respondent was without proper application of mind. Therefore the petitioner has sought for quashment of the impugned order passed by the first respondent.