V S DHARMARAJ Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR THENI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THIS writ petition is filed for a direction forbearing the respondents in any manner proceeding with the notice dated 13.2.2006 under Section 212 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. The petitioner is the Chairman of K. Mailadumparai Panchayat Union. The members of the Panchayat Union Council by a letter dated 10.11.2005 represented to the second respondent for the removal of the Chairman under Section 212 of the Act by a no confidence motion and explanation was called for by the first respondent on 14.11.2005 and the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 21.11.2005. A meeting was scheduled to consider the no confidence motion on 6.12.2005. When the said meeting was challenged in W.P. No. 10826 of 2005 an interim stay was passed on 1.12.2005 directing that the meeting shall go on but resolution shall not be implemented. However,, the first respondent has adjourned the meeting scheduled on 6.12.2005 to 14.12.2005. When the said proceeding was also challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No.11536 of 2005 on the ground that when once the meeting is scheduled, it cannot be adjourned, this Court has granted an interim order on 13.12.2005. However, the respondent has withdrawn the impugned notice in both the writ petitions calling for the meeting on 6.12.2005 and the adjourned meeting on 14.12.2005. The said withdrawal of the impugned notice was on 18.1.2006. Thereafter, the first respondent on the basis of the letter of the members of the Panchayat Union Council by a letter dated 27.1.2006 withdrew the proposal to make a no confidence motion against the petitioner.

(3.) MR. K.M. Vijayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that even the communication of the first respondent dated 14.11.2005 by referring about the complaints given by the members of the Panchayat Union Council dated 10.11.2005, the subject categorically states that the 10 members initiated to move no confidence motion against the petitioner based on certain charges. Under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, it is only Section 212 which provides for moving a no confidence motion against the Chairman and others. Even in the subsequent communication dated 23.11.2005 the second respondent has used the same term as no confidence motion referring to the complaints of the members of the Panchayat Union Council dated 10.11.2005. It cannot be said that the communication of the second respondent dated 23.11.2005 alone is a mistake. A reference to both the letters dated 14.11.2005 and 23.11.2005 of the respondents would show that there is absolutely no mistake and what was proposed by the members on 10.11.2005 was only a no confidence motion under Section 212 of the Act. When admittedly, such proposal for no confidence motion dated 10.11.2005 was withdrawn by the members themselves and based on which the proceedings have been dropped, the same has to be construed as if the motion was not carried out by such majority as per Section 212(14) of the Act and therefore, before a lapse of one year the present notice issued under Section 212 is not valid in law.