K RASAIYYA Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By G.O.Ms.No.217, Rural Development (C1) Department, dated 10.10.200 3, the first respondent, exercising the powers conferred under Section 212(13) of the Tamilnadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (for brevity "the Act"), removed the petitioner from the post of the Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council, Vathiraiyurupu, Virudhunagar District, based on a no confidence motion held on 18.8.2003 at 3 p.m. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the notification issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.217, Rural Development (C1) Department, dated 10.10.2003 published in the Tamilnadu Gazette No.282, dated 10.10.2003 and quash the same, on the ground that the resolution dated 18.8.2003 passed by the second respondent, as well as the consequential notification issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.217, Rural Development (C1) Department, dated 10.10.2003, are violative of Section 212(13) of the Act, for want of support of not less than two-third of the sanctioned strength of the Village Panchayat. By G.O.Ms.No.217, Rural Development (C1) Department, dated 10.10.200 3, the first respondent, exercising the powers conferred under Section 212(13) of the Tamilnadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (for brevity "the Act"), removed the petitioner from the post of the Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council, Vathiraiyurupu, Virudhunagar District, based on a no confidence motion held on 18.8.2003 at 3 p.m. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the notification issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.217, Rural Development (C1) Department, dated 10.10.2003 published in the Tamilnadu Gazette No.282, dated 10.10.2003 and quash the same, on the ground that the resolution dated 18.8.2003 passed by the second respondent, as well as the consequential notification issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.217, Rural Development (C1) Department, dated 10.10.2003, are violative of Section 212(13) of the Act, for want of support of not less than two-third of the sanctioned strength of the Village Panchayat.

(2.) Concededly, the Panchayat Union Council consists of thirteen members. Out of them only eight members attended the no confidence motion held on 18.8.2003, while two-third of the sanctioned strength of the Council requires nine members to validate the motion, as per Section 212(13) of the Act, which reads as follows:

(3.) In view of the shortage of support of sanctioned strength of the panchayat union council, which met on 18.8.2003, whereunder the impugned no confidence motion was passed, based on which the impugned notification dated 10.10.2003 removing the petitioner from the post of Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council, Vathiraiyurupu, Virudhunagar District was passed, as apparent on the face of the records, I have no hesitation to interfere with the impugned notification dated 10.10.2003, as the same is contrary to Section 212(13) of the Act.