DR A MANONMANI DURAIPANDIAN THE CHAIRMAN, THIRUPPUVANAM PANCHAYAT UNION Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR; ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT; REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER, THIRUPPUVANAM PANCHAYAT UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the Chairman of the Thiruppuvanam Panchayat Union, Sivaganga District. She has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 01.09.2008 and 02.09.2008, wherein and by which the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivaganga directed to submit her remarks on the motion of no confidence presented by 14 Panchayat Union Councillors and also had convened a special meeting of the Panchayat Union Council on 19.09.2008 for discussing the said motion.

(2.) Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is completely repugnant to Section 212 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. He further submitted that in terms of Section 212(2), there is no evidence to show that the motion was presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer in person by two of the Councillors who are signatories to the motion. According to him, reading of the correspondence shows that it has been forwarded by the Assistant Director of Panchayat and therefore, this is the first flow in the proceedings initiated by him.

(3.) The second submission was that in terms of Section 212(3) statement of charges along with the motion will have to be given to her and she must be given seven days' time to submit her explanation. Even before her explanation is received, the Revenue Divisional Officer had convened a meeting which is improper. Apart from that, he also submitted that by convening a meeting on 04.09.2008, there was a violation under Section 212(5). For the reasons best known to them, the said meeting was postponed and by the impugned notice the meeting has been reconvened on 19.09.2008. For postponing the meeting, no explanation was given by the respondents. Under Section 212(7), if he is unable to preside over the meeting, reasons should be recorded for adjourning the meeting and no such reasons are forthcoming. On these grounds the learned Counsel wanted to set aside the impugned notice.