M SELVAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a councilor for the 12th Ward in Kadayampatti Panchayat Union of Karuvalli village. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to cancel the tender notification dated 3. 8. 2009 calling for various items of work in the Panchayat Union in respect of 19 Wards and for a direction to equally distribute the amounts for all 19 Wards in terms of the advice note given by the first respondent dated 28. 7. 2009.

(2.) IT is stated by the petitioner that whenever any funds are sanctioned for projects, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Union takes the better part of the cake and leaves only a fringe benefit for other councilors for development works in their wards. Therefore, when an amount of Rs. 1,52,00,000/- were sanctioned, Rs. 52 lakhs were appropriated for the 16th and 9th Wards, which the Chairman and Vice-Chairman hails and the balance Rs. 1 crore was divided among the 17 Wards. This has necessitated one Rajeshwari, the Councilor of Ward No. 2 to file a writ petition before this Court being W. P. No. 6871 of 2009. This Court, by a final order dated 18. 4. 2009, directed the first respondent-District Collector to consider her representation and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the direction, the District Collector, by proceedings dated 28. 7. 2009 stated that there must be a non-discriminatory approach in allocation of funds and the panchayat union is advised not to give room for any complaints and the Block development Officer was also made to supervise these matters.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the advice of the District Collector, a resolution was passed on 21. 9. 2009 once again calling for tender for various works in which the petitioner Ward is discriminated. According to the petitioner, it is contrary to the advice given by the District Collector. Pursuant to the resolution of the Panchayat Union Council, various tender notifications were issued in respect of various projects, which are enclosed in the typed set from page Nos. 5 to36. The tender notifications were issued on 3rd august, 2009. This Court is not able to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once allotments were made and tender notifications were issued, the amounts should be allotted to each Ward and each ward must be given a equal share. As can be seen from the various projects, each project cost is different and the nature of work is also different. It is for the Panchayat Union Council to decide what should be the nature of work to be undertaken in a particular area. There is no question of this Court interfering with the decision taken by a Panchayat Union Council. In case the petitioner is aggrieved that such a decision or a resolution passed by the Panchayat Union council is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Panchayat Act, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same by way of an appeal to the District collector under Section 202 of the Panchayat Act and get his grievances redressed. It is not for this Court to decide as to what should be the provision to each panchayat union and what allocations should be made to each Ward within the Panchayat Union Council. The writ petition is misconceived and accordingly, stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.