S P KANDASAMY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COIMBATORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner would contend that he was unanimously selected and functioning as Vice-chairman of the Samathur Village Panchayat on the death of incumbent Vice-Chairman and attending to the welfare of the public at large. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent has not properly implemented the free Gas Distribution scheme announced by the Government of Tamil Nadu in certain wards and she has also not attended to the grievances expressed by the public in this regard. THE fourth respondent also not attended the office of the Panchayat regularly and as Vice-chairman, the petitioner took the burden of attending to all the duties and responsibilities relating to the office of the Village Panchayat. While so, on 15.08.2010, prior to flag hoisting function, group of aggrieved women folk approached the fourth respondent complaining non-distribution of free gas supply to them, but it was not properly attended to by the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the gathering of the general public and the complaint given by them, the fourth respondent refused to hoist the national flag and left the office, with the result, the national flag was hoisted by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. While the facts are so, the respondents 4 to 6 have foisted a false case against the petitioner as if he prevented the fourth respondent from hoisting the national flag. Simultaneously, the fourth respondent, along with the fifth and sixth respondents have tendered their resignation to the third respondent and it was also accepted as contemplated under Section 31 of the District Municipalities Act. While so, even after resigning their posts and inspite of the bar to revoke the resignation, the respondents 2 and 3 have permitted the respondents 4 to 6 to withdraw the resignations without any authority. THEreafter, the fourth respondent convened a council meeting on 03.09.2010 without any authority after resigning her post. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is an outsider the moment after she resigned the post and she has no legal right to convene any meeting of the panchayat. THE petitioner has also sent a telegram to the respondents 1 and 2 on 25.08.2010 to restrain the respondents 4 to 6 from convening or attending the panchayat council meetings, followed by a representation dated 26.08.2010, but till date, no action was taken, hence, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) HEARD the counsel for both sides. The petitioner would contend that the respondents 4 to 6 have tendered their resignation of their posts and therefore, as per Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, it is deemed that they have resigned their post and it will not confer them any right to continue in the post as President and Councillors of the Panchayat respectively. By virtue of their resignation, the post of President of the Panchayat had became vacant and therefore, election has to be conducted for filling up the post of President.