G MURUGAIYAN Vs. M SINGARAVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 31.7.2007 passed in M.P. No. 2 of 2007 in W.P. No. 24325 of 2007.

(2.) THE first respondent is a elected Chairman of Thirunallar Commune Panchayat, which consists of 9 Councillors. On 26.6.2007, 5 Councillors have submitted a written notice of intention to move a motion under Section 207(2) of the Pondycherry Village and Commune Panchayats Act, 1973, (Act 10 of 1973), (in short, "the Act"). On receipt of the same, the second respondent, Authorised Officer/Deputy Director, Rural Development Department of Panchayat, Puducherry has issued a notice along with the statement of charges, calling upon the first respondent, who was the elected Chairman of the said Commune, to submit his explanation within a period of one week. THE first respondent, who has received the notice on 4.7.2007, submitted his explanation to the second respondent, on 10.7.2007. In the meanwhile, on 9.7.2007, one of the said 5 Councillors withdrew his consent for moving the motion. In spite of the same, the second respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 12.7.2007 under Section 207(4) of the Act, fixing the date of meeting as 2.8.2007 at 10.00 a.m. for consideration of the motion at the Office of the Commune Panchayat Council.

(3.) THE learned single Judge has granted the order of stay on the basis that even before the explanation submitted by the first respondent, one of the 5 persons, who have given notice for moving the motion has withdrawn his consent on 9.7.2007, and therefore, "the motion" mentioned under Section 207(4) of the Act does not survive, since half of the sanctioned strength of the Commune Panchayat is not supporting the motion. Further, while considering the Division Bench decision of this Court in V. C. Kadhirvelu v. Sub-Collector, Karur Division Bench decision of this Court in V. C. Kadhirvelu v. Sub-Collector, Karur Division Bench decision of this Court in V. C. Kadhirvelu v. Sub-Collector, Karur AIR 1976 Mad 304 relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellants herein, who were respondents 2 to 6 in the writ petition, the learned Judge, felt that the said decision requires reconsideration and on that basis holding that prima facie the first respondent has made out a case, an order of interim stay was granted.