D. POORNIMA RANGARAJAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 4th respondent, dtd. 2/2/2023.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he has elected as a Panchayat President of Marudut Village Panchayat, Karamadai Panchayat Union, Mettupalayam Taluk on 6/1/2020 and from that date onwards, he is discharging his duties as President of that village. However, the second respondent has initiated action against the petitioner based on the audit objection that the petitioner has spent the funds of that panchayat by violating the Government norms and rules and also granted building permission in violation of the rules. Hence, the Tahsildar has passed the impugned order dtd. 2/2/2023 for the personal appearance of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order has been passed by second respondent viz., the Assistant Director of Rural Development to initiate action under Sec. 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as per Sec. 205 of the Act, the District Collector is required to verify whether an explanation received from the panchayat President is satisfactory or not. Only on forming such opinion, the District Collector can proceed further forwarding the charges against the President or Vice President to the Tahsildar for serving notice to all the members to ascertain their views as per Sec. 205 of the Act. Whereas in this case, no procedure whatsoever is followed, the Tahsildar has referred the communication of the Assistant Director of Rural Development and called for such meeting to ascertain the views of the members of that panchayat which is impermissible under law. Further, the said notice has not served to other members for setting their views. Hence, the learned counsel prays to set aside the order impugned.