J MARIA SELVAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 16.11.2005 as published in the official gazette notification dated 23.11.2005. The petitioner was elected as the President of Aariyappapuram Panchayat in the year 1996 and after completing his first tenure he was re-elected for the second term in the year 2001 which is for another five years. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner he has made many developments in the village and he has put up many overhead tanks facilitating drinking water to every family.

(3.) IT was in those circumstances, a clarification was sought for from the Director of Rural Development, Chennai for taking further action, for the removal of the President, namely the writ petitioner. IT is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Director of Rural Development has clarified that the action on the notice issued to the President may be initiated by applying the provisions of Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 at the discretion of the Inspector of Panchayats. According to the second respondent, after considering the views of the village Panchayat as Inspector, he can in his discretion either remove the President from the office by notification or to drop further action. IT is also stated in the counter affidavit that the legal opinion also sought for from the Government Pleader, Thirunelveli, who has opined that the Inspector can give his discretion. While it is admitted in the counter affidavit that the Inspector can analyse the minutes and independently can come to a conclusion as to whether the views of the members who supported the President are genuine. IT is further stated that the Inspector need not take into consideration the majority of members in favour of the President especially when the same is detrimental to the Panchayat and there is a pendency of criminal case. IT is also stated that the explanation submitted by the President for the notice issued by the second respondent dated 12.1.2005 has been carefully considered and the Personal Assistant to the Collector. Thirunelveli has been directed to enquire and the enquiry has confirmed the allegations levelled against the President as true.