KRISHNAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by Krishnan challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by the Block Development Officer(Village Panchayat), Mailam Panchayat Union, Villupuram District in Na.Ka.Al/2159/07 dated 15.02.2008, to quash the same with the further direction to the respondents 2 and 4 to drop further action in recovering the amount from the petitioner.

(2.) (i) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent-Block Development Officer, Mailam Panchayat Union taking a stand that the action of the petitioner in issuing a cheque in the name of the contractor-Selvam was illegal and improper. The reason being, before granting sanction order he has to get permission from the Block Development Officer as per the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994. In the present case, when there was no specific application made by the 4th respondent for sanctioning the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the contractor-Selvam, taking a plea that the petitioner has issued a cheque on the basis of the resolution passed in the village panchayat cannot be accepted.

(3.) (i) But this Court is not able to agree with the reasoning given in the counter affidavit in support of the impugned order. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was the President of the Vizhukkam Panchayat during the period from 1.4.2006 to 21.10.2006. During the tenure as President, the District Collector, Villupuram District-the 2nd respondent by his proceedings No. A7/11309/05-02 dated 25.03.2006 has given an administrative sanction for digging a bore well and fixing a motor therein. That apart, the District Collector has also given an administrative sanction for fixing a motor in the well dug in the open place of the Vizhukkam colony. After that, he has also allotted Rs. 94,000/- under the 12th Finance Commission Subsidy Scheme. Under the scheme, the President of the village has to call for the tenders by passing a resolution in the village panchayat. The petitioner has rightly called for tenders for allotting the abovesaid work. When the two contractors, namely, Selvam and Elumalai have given their tender forms, accepting the tender given by Selvam who was showing the lesser price for completing the work, the petitioner allotted the work to Selvam, who has also completed the work as early as September 2006. Thereafter, the contractor-Selvam has demanded the advance of Rs. 75,000/- for the work done. In view of that the petitioner has convened the village Panchayat meeting on 15.9.2006 and a resolution was passed therein unanimously to pay 60% of the amount claimed by the contractor. In the meanwhile, the new Panchayat President has sworn in and the aforesaid amount was also shown in the audit and subsequently, the same was approved by the Deputy Block Development Officer in his proceedings dated 27.10.2006. A close perusal of the proceedings dated 27.10.2006 shows that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was rightly audited and approved by the Deputy Block Development Officer. Therefore, when the amount of Rs. 94,000/- was allotted by the 2nd respondent and the same was also approved by the Deputy Block Development Officer in his proceedings dated 27.10.2006, this Court further looking at the resolution passed on 15.9.2006 to pay 60% of the amount to the contractor, does not find any reason to uphold the impugned order calling upon the petitioner to return the money on the ground that he has failed to get prior approval from the 4th respondent. When the District Collector, Vizhukkam village has allotted the amount of Rs. 94,000/- under the 12th Finance Commission Subsidy Scheme and the same was also approved by the Deputy Block Development Officer, the question of again obtaining one another prior approval from the 4th respondent does not arise.