S. DEVASENA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Hema Sampath, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. P. Balathandayutham, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First to Fifth Respondents, Ms. Meera Arumugam, Learned Counsel for the Sixth Respondent and Mr. C.Prakasam, Learned Counsel for the Seventh Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The Petitioner and the Seventh Respondent have been elected as President and Vice-President respectively of Sedappalayam Panchayat and as per Sec. 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), they have to jointly sign all cheques of the funds of that Panchayat. According to the Petitioner, since the Seventh Respondent was not co-operating in signing the cheques and taking note of that situation, the said Village Panchayat had passed a resolution on 5/6/2020 authorizing one of its ward members, viz., S.Bagyam, to sign the cheques in the place of the Seventh Respondent. However, the Second Respondent by proceedings in Na. Ka. No. A2/0185/2020 dtd. 12/11/2021 passed an order stating that the Seventh Respondent has been advised to co-operate with the Petitioner in signing the cheques and no immediate action is required to act on the resolution to change the authority of signing the cheques from the Seventh Respondent to the said S.Bagyam. The said order is challenged by the Petitioner in this Writ Petition.

(3.) It is brought to notice by Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First to Fifth Respondents that in furtherance to the interim orders passed by this Court from time to time, the Seventh Respondent has signed all the pending cheques till date. However, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that the non-co-operative attitude exhibited by the Seventh Respondent has created administrative difficulties in the smooth functioning of the Village Panchayat including lapse of the period of validity of some cheques. In response, Learned Counsel for the Seventh Respondent explains that those disputed cheques had not been signed by the Seventh Respondent as there was no proper explanation from the Petitioner for issuing those cheques without verifying as to whether the works had been properly completed for which payment was sought to be made through those cheques and it is further stated that the Seventh Respondent is always willing to co-operate to sign the cheques, if they are prepared after proper verification of the actual work done by the concerned persons.