RAMU Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an elected ward member of Thiruppuvanam Panchayat Union. It is in Sivagangai District. He challenges the tender notification bearing Na.Ka.No.A2/2225/2019 dated 01.07.2020 issued by the Block Development Officer, Thiruppuvanam. He alleges that the choice of tender works has been influenced by political considerations. The more important ones are to be carried out in the wards that have elected the candidates belonging to the party ruling the State. Out of seventeen members in the panchayat union, nine belong to the opposition parties. One independent ward member is also with them. The party ruling the State could not secure a majority in this panchayat union. Hence, the officials are not convening the meetings for holding elections for the posts of Chairman and Vice-chairman. Taking advantage of the situation, the third respondent has issued the impugned tender notification bypassing the local body.

(2.) The respondents have filed counter affidavits controverting the aforesaid allegations. Their stand is that a communication was issued by the third respondent vide Na.Ka.No.A2/2225/2019 dated 22.05.2020 to all ward members requesting them to identify the welfare works to be carried out in their respective wards. In response thereto, the petitioner herein submitted letter dated 28.05.2020 identifying as many as three works. Similar applications were given by the other ward members also. These works were to be carried out by utilizing the fund allocation made by the 15th Finance Commission. The applications submitted by the petitioner as well as the other ward members are being processed. The works that are the subject matter of the impugned tender notification are to be carried out under the general fund of the panchayat. Proposals for getting administrative sanction for these works were periodically submitted from March, 2020 to the second respondent. Sanction had also been accorded by the second respondent. The works mentioned in the impugned tender notification have no nexus with the 15th Finance Commission fund.

(3.) The learned Special Government Pleader contended that this Court ought not to interfere with the impugned tender process. She questioned the locus standi of the petitioner who is labouring under the impression that issuance of the impugned notification constitutes rejection of his request made vide letter dated 28.05.2020. The immediate execution of the works is necessary for the welfare of the general public. There is statutory backing traceable to Section 86 and Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). That apart, the third respondent is very much authorised to discharge the functions of the panchayat union in his capacity as the Special Officer appointed under Section 261-A of the Act.