K MUNIYANDI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN W.P.No.34886 of 2007, the writ petitioner has come forward to this Court for direction against the first respondent Government to declare the continuance of the third respondent as Chairman of Theni Allinagaram Municipality as illegal and irregular pursuant to the Ordinance No.5/07 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the Gazette notification dated 4.10.2007 and consequently, to reinduct the petitioner as Chairman of Allinagaram Municipality, on the basis that "No Confidence Motion" moved against the petitioner stands abated.

(2.) THE petitioner was elected as Councilor and subsequently, as Chairman of THEni Allinagaram Municipality in October, 2006. According to him, he has carried out many public services in the public interest in an impartial manner, which resulted in other elected council members having a grudge against the petitioner. THE second respondent has issued a show-cause notice dated 16.05.2007, stating that on 6.6.2007 at 10.00 am "no confidence motion" would be moved against the petitioner as Chairman. After "no confidence motion" was moved on the said date, the Government passed G.O.(D) 267, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA5) Department dated 15.6.2007 directing the removal of the petitioner as Chairman. Challenging the said Government Order dated 15.6.2007, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.21822 of 207 for declaration that section 40-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (in short, "the Act") and the order of the first respondent in G.O.(D)No.267, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA5) Department dated 15.6.2007 are ultra vires.

(3.) IN the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging section 40-A of the Act, it is the contention of the petitioner that section 40-A does not prescribe any opportunity of being heard and therefore, it is against the principles of natural justice. He also states that in the present case, the written notice of intention has not been signed by the prescribed number of persons. It is also the case of the petitioner that under the impugned order the second respondent has failed to hold secret ballot and the decision was taken by raising of hands, which according to the petitioner is illegal. Further, the written notice of intention must be in such a form which is prescribed by the State Government and inasmuch as the notice has not been issued in such form, it is not valid. Even the show-cause notice issued is predetermined. According to the petitioner, no opportunity was given for debate and discussion before putting the intention to vote.