N GANESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.2362/2007/A3, dated 31.01.2008 and the consequential notification of the second respondent as published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette Part IV Section 2 dated 27.02.2008 and quash the same.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows:&#8209THE petitioner was elected first time as President of Kariyampalayam Panchayat between 2001 and 2006 and again, he was elected for the same post for the period from 2006 to 2011. In order to improve the revenue of the Village Panchayat, the petitioner took steps to collect fee for approval of building plan and levied property tax to the buildings owned by the mill owners. Having aggrieved by the said action of the petitioner, the mill owners sent a false representation to the first respondent, who in turn forwarded the said representation to the second respondent to take suitable action. THEreafter, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 18.10.2007 under Section 205 (1) of THE Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, hereinafter called as the Act containing 13 vexatious charges and the same was served on the petitioner only on 31.10.2007. In the said show cause notice, the proceedings of the first respondent dated 10.10.2007, a report of the Additional Director, Rural Development Department dated 30.09.2007 and 01.10.2007 and the memo of the second respondent dated 16.10.2007 were referred, hence, the petitioner sent a letter dated 01.11.2007 to the second respondent requesting to furnish copies of the said documents, but the second respondent deliberately withdrew the said show cause notice dated 18.10.2007 and issued a fresh show cause notice dated 12.12.2007, however, for the same set of 13 charges. THE petitioner also sent representations dated 15.12.2007 and 19.12.2007 again requesting the first respondent to furnish copies of the said documents, however the same were not furnished to him. In the meantime, pursuant to the orders of the second respondent, the third respondent issued a letter dated 08.01.2008 summoning the special meeting of the Panchayat on 21.01.2008, immediately, the petitioner has filed WP No. 1508 of 2008 before this Court to quash the letter dated 08.01.2008 of the third respondent and this Court ordered notice to the respondents and posted the writ petition on 22.01.2008. In the meanwhile, the meeting as scheduled was conducted and a resolution was passed allegedly approving the charges against the petitioner despite the fact the petitioner did not participate in the meeting. THE charge Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 related to the previous tenure between 2001 to 2006 and under Section 205 the Act, no action can be initiated by the respondents for the said charges after the expiry of the said tenure. THEreafter, the impugned order dated 30.01.2008 was passed by the second respondent removing the petitioner from the post of President and the same was served to the petitioner by affixture only on 03.03.2008.

(3.) A reading of the above provision makes it clear that an enquiry as contemplated in Section 25 is to be 'necessarily held, if an application to that effect is filed by the majority of the members of the governing body or of not less than 1/3 of the members of the society. But the legislation at the same time has vested the discretion in Registrar to initiate such an enquiry on his own motion to enquire into the Constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society Such an exercise can be undertaken by the Registrar on his own motion only on the basis of some cogent materials of that purpose. Therefore, for holding an enquiry on his own some information must come to his possession either from the external or from the internal sources, which on an object appraisal may necessiate an enquiry as statutorily prescribed. Keeping in view the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, the question to be answered is, whether the complaints filed by the persons having knowledge about the affairs of the registered society can at all form a basis empowering the " Registrar to hold an enquiry on his own motion. In my opinion, the answer is to be in the affirmative.". 5. Mr. Al. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in MP No. 2 of 2008, which was filed to implead him as one of the respondents in the writ petition, has submitted that the petitioner is one of the members of Kaliyampalayam Panchayat that in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, the petitioner has pointed out that after the issuance of gazzette notification, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.01.2008 of the second respondent and obtained interim stay, which resulted in paralysing all the activities of the Panchayat that as a sitting member of the Village Panchayat and also a person participated in the resolution for removal of the petitioner from the post of President he is entitled. to be heard and prayed for allowing the petition.