RANJITHAM W/O K MOHAN, PREMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONDENT, GOUNDACHI PUDUR PANCHAYAT AND K BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND U DEIVASIGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 27-10-2005 passed by the first respondent District Collector, cancelling the resolution dated 28-9-2005 passed by the Goundachi Panchayat (in short 'the Panchayat'), disqualifying the second respondent from the membership of the Panchayat Union and the resolution dated 12-9-2005, authorising Tmt. Selvi, a member, to sign the cheques as co-signatory along with the president, the President as well as a member of the said Panchayat Union have filed the above writ petitions.

(2.) Facts and the issue involved are identical in both the writ petitions. Petitioners are the President and member respectively of the Goundachipudur Panchayat Union. The second respondent was a member and also the vice-president. The panchayat union served a notice dated 1 8-8-2005, intimating that he suffered disqualification under Section 38(j) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 since he absented himself from attending more than three meetings consecutively. The second respondent by his letter dated 2-9-2005 denied the alleged disqualification and requested for the restoration of his membership. The Panchayat, in its meeting held on 28-9-2005, considered the request, but rejected it. In view of the disqualification suffered by the second respondent and his removal from the office of the vice-president, the panchayat passed a resolution on 12-9-2005, authorising one Selvi, an elected Member, to sign the cheques as co-signatory along with the President. The said resolutions were forwarded to the first respondent for necessary approval. The first respondent, by the impugned order, cancelled both the resolutions. Challenging the said order, the present writ petitions have been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same was passed without jurisdiction. The first respondent failed to take into consideration that the second respondent attracted disqualification by absenting himself from attending three consecutive meetings of the Panchayat and his disqualification is automatic and by operation of law. No procedure as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 was violated in the matter as has been observed by the first respondent in the impugned order. The impugned order is vague and does not pinpoint as to which procedure of the Act has been violated by the Panchayat while serving the notice of disqualification on the second respondent. The first respondent has no jurisdiction at all to restore the second respondent to the membership of the Panchayat and to the post of Vice President. Restoration can be done only by an order of adjudication passed by the authority prescribed under the Act, viz. the District Munsif having jurisdiction over the area. The second respondent, after receipt of letter of disqualification, has not filed any application before the District Munsif Court for adjudication and, therefore, on the expiry of two months from the date of se rvice of the notice, he ceased to be the Member of the Panchayat. The first respondent also erred in rejecting the resolution of the Panchayat co-opting one of its member to sign the cheques along with the President. Under Section 188(3) of the Act when the office of the Vice President is vacant, Panchayat, by passing a resolution, may authorise any one of its members as the signing authority jointly along with the President. By rejecting the said resolution, the first respondent has interfered with the day to day administration of the Panchayat. Th second respondent taking advantage of the impugned order is interfering with the administration of the panchayat.