LAWS(MAD)-2002-10-187

P JAGADEESAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT KANCHEEPURAM

Decided On October 23, 2002
P.JAGADEESAN Appellant
V/S
COLLECTOR OF KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 1.4.2002 in Na.Ka. No.956/2002 Po-3 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from holding the proposed meeting slated for 16.4.2002 to consider the 'No Confidence Motion'.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he is the Chairman of Ullagaram Puzhithivakkam Town Panchayat. The Town Panchayat consists of 18 councillors of whom seven owe allegiance to AIADMK and nine to DMK and two independents. Some of the members who belong to AIADMK have been obstructing the smooth functioning of the Town Panchayat by the petitioner as its elected Chairman. As the petitioner took exception to the undemocratic conduct on the part of the particular section of councillors, they submitted a false complaint against the petitioner to Collector, Kanchipuram. On the basis of the false complaint, without any notice or affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to place the real facts, the Collector of Kanchipuram directed the 2nd respondent, Assistant Director of Town Planning to convene a meeting of the councillors on 16.4.2002 to consider the motion of no confidence against the writ petitioner. The notice dated 1.4.2002 was actually served on the petitioner on 8.4.2002 at the Central Prison, Chennai, where the petitioner was confined on certain trumped up charges.

(3.) A notice is purported to be issued under Section 40-B of The Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, which has since been repealed by Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 with effect from 1.8.2000. The said notice has been issued without any prior communication by way of any enquiry or proceedings prelude to going to the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking to challenge the said proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 1.4.2002.