P. JEYAPANDI Vs. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in these writ petitions being common, they are decided by this common order.

(2.) THE challenge in these petitions is to the notices in Ref. Na.Ka.No.457 -08 dated 24.1.2008 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti Taluk, the first respondent herein.

(3.) THE petitioners in W.P. Nos.1041 and 1042 of 2008, participated in the election conducted under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (the Act for short) for the post of Councillors of the Chellampatty Panchayat Union in which they were elected as Councillors in Ward Nos.2 and 16 respectively. Subsequent to their election as Councillors, they participated in the election process for the post of Vice -Chairman and Chairman respectively and they got elected as such and took charge of the respective post on 25.10.2006. According to the petitioners, the Panchayat Union is functioning as per the instructions of the Government of Tamil Nadu in accordance with the provisions of the Act and there is no adverse remarks either from the public or from the Inspector of Panchayats as regards the functioning of the Panchayat Union. The above being the position, the respondents 2 and 3 had abducted some of the Councillors of the said Panchayat Union. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents 2 and 3, the relatives of those abducted Councillors lodged criminal complaints in three police stations and habeas corpus petitions were filed in respect of two Councillors who were abducted. While those habeas corpus petitions were heard by this Court, the said Councillors/detenus were forced to give a statement that they were not abducted and that they were in Kerala.