V.C. KADHIRVELU Vs. SUB-COLLECTOR, KARUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Chairman of the Thanthoni Panchayat Union. The said Panchayat Union consists of 26 members out of which 21 are elected from the Panchayats and 5 are nominated.

(2.) ON 22 -8 -1975, one Karuppanna Gounder, a member of the Panchayat Union, along with another member, presented a notice of intention signed by 19 members, out of the total strength of 26 proposing to move a no -confidence motion against the petitioner under Section 153 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1958. The said notice also contained various charges against the petitioner in respect of which the no -confidence motion was intended to be moved. Later on 24 -8 -1975, the respondent, before whom a notice of intention to move the motion of no -confidence was presented, has communicated the said statement of charges along with the motion signed by 19 members, to the petitioner calling for his reply to the said charges within a week from the date of the receipt of his letter dated 24 -8 -1975. It has been alleged by the petitioner that on 26 -8 -1975, subsequent to the issue of the notice to the petitioner by the respondent seven of the members have sent individual letters to the Sub -Collector withdrawing their intention to move the no -confidence motion, presented earlier. In his answer to the notice issued by the respondent on 24 -8 -1975, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the various charges. In that explanation, he naturally pointed out that seven of the members have withdrawn their consent to the no -confidence motion and, therefore, the signatories to the notice of motion fall short of the requisite number required under Section 153 (2) of the Act. Ignoring this objection, the respondent has issued a notice dated 3 -9 -1975 under Section 153 (4) of the Pranchayats Act convening a meeting on 25 -9 -1975, for consideration of the no -confidence motion. It is at this stage the petitioner has come to this court seeking a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent from holding the meeting on 25 -9 -1975 as notified.

(3.) I am not inclined to agree with either of these contentions. Firstly, it is seen that the respondent has acted upon the notice of intention signed by 19 members of the Panchayat Union and presented before him under Section 153 (2) of the Act by issuing a notice to the petitioner on 24 -8 -1975 and calling for his reply to the said charges. From the fact that 7 members who were signatories to the notice of intention presented earlier, had withdrawn their consent, the action earlier initiated under Section 153 (3) of the Act on 24 -8 -1975 by the respondent will not become invalid. Once the petitioner has been called upon to explain the charges levelled against him in the statement of charges, he has to send a reply to the said charges and if the respondent considers that the petitioner's reply to the statement of charges is not convincing, he can proceed to convene the meeting for consideration of the no -confidence motion. The fact that subsequent to the initiation of the proceedings under Section 153 (3) of the Act 7 of the members have withdrawn their consent, will not take away the jurisdiction of the respondent which he has chosen to exercise properly on the presentation of a notice of motion under Section 153 (2) of the Act by the requisite number of members. As regards the second contention that the procedure contemplated in Section 153 (3) of the Act has not been followed, I find from the copy of the notice dated 24 -8 -1975 served on the petitioner that a statement of charges along with the motion has been sent to him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not enough to merely serve a copy of the statement of charges along with the notice of intention to make the motion. But it is necessary, under the said section to serve on the petitioner the actual no confidence motion to be moved. I do not understand the section in the manner suggested by the learned counsel. It is the copy of the notice of intention to make the motion which is referred to in Section 153 (2) of the Act and which is required to be served on the petitioner. That has been done in this case. The respondent's notice dated 24 -8 -1975 calling for the petitioner's explanation produced before me contains an enclosure which is in two parts the first part containing a notice of intention to make the motion and the other containing the statement of charges levelled against the petitioner. I do not think that apart from the copy of the notice of intention moved by the requisite number of members under Section 153 (2) of the Act, the actual no - confidence motion to be moved at the meeting is required to be served on the petitioner. Both the contentions therefore fail. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.