SHANTHI LOGANATHAN Vs. COLLECTOR THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT THIRUVANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been made to an order passed by the second respondent in the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 2341/2011/B2, dated 25.7.2011, wherein, the second respondent passed an order under Section 50(1)(d) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (for short, 'the Act'), holding that the petitioner ceased to hold the office for the alleged reason that she has violated Section 30(1) of the Act, seeking to quash the same and for consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's functioning as Chairman of the Arani Municipality. Thiruvannamalai District. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(2.) The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating as follows:

(3.) The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent is not competent to disqualify the petitioner by passing the impugned order, contrary to the provisions of Section 50(1)(d) of the Act and the respondents can only apply to the District Judge through the Council and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated in law. He further contended that the copy of the complaint was not furnished to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not make her submissions and the action contemplated by the respondents by passing the impugned order, is in violation of the principles of natural justice.