C SUBRAMANIAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff is the Appellant. The suit is filed by the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 580 of 2007, on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli seeking the relief of decla-ration declaring the proceedings No. A6/5151/2006 dated 20.09.2007 issued by the Second Defendant, removing the Plaintiff from the post of President as null and void and also for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from intervening the functioning of the Plaintiff as the President of the Panchayat.

(2.) The Appellant herein is the President of the Panchayat duly elected. The Appellant made several complaints to the Defendants as well as the police stating that the Clerk of the Panchayat who is none other then the daughter of the erstwhile President has taken the entire records of the Panchayat. Ex.A2 to 9 are the complaints given to the police by the Defendants. However, proceedings have been initiated by the second Defendant under Section 205(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994, to show cause as to why he could not be removed from his post for the alleged irregularities committed by him.

(3.) In pursuant to the said show cause notice, the second Defendant has directed the Tahsildar to convene a meeting of the Panchayat as required under Section 205(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994, for the purpose of calling for the report so as to enable him to proceed further. Thereafter, the second Defendant has passed an order removing the Appellant from the post of Panchayat President, and challenging the same, the Appellant has filed the suit. The trial court after considering the various documents filed by the Appellant under Exs. Al to 16, and also after considering the evidence of Defendants 1 and 2, Exs. Bl to 10, has come to the conclusion that the procedure contemplated under Section 205(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994, has been violated, inasmuch as the resolution of the Panchayat along with report of the Tahsildar has not been forwarded to the second Respondent and even assuming the same is forwarded, the order passed by the second Respondent which has been challenged in the suit does not disclose the consideration of the said report. The trial court has also found that the majority of the members have voted in favour of the Appellant, thereby resolving that the Appellant need not be removed. The trial court accepting the case of the Appellant/Plaintiff, decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the Respondents filed an appeal and the lower appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court, on the sole ground that the suit is not maintainable, in view of the provision under Section 205(12) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, which provides for an appeal against the order of the second Defendant. Challenging the same, the second appeal has been preferred.