R THALAIMAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF PANCHAYATS-CUM-DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PANCHAYAT. Factual Matrix

(2.) THE petitioner is the Vice President of Muthurangampatti Village Panchayat Council in the District of Karur. As per Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat Act') all cheques for payment from village panchayat shall be signed jointly by the President and Vice President. According to the petitioner, he discharged his duties as Vice President in accordance with the provisions of the Panchayat Act, However, the third respondent, who is the President of the Panchayat, made a demand to sign the cheques without the support of the resolution of the Panchayat Council and in respect of certain works, which were not executed. THErefore, there were difference of opinion between the petitioner and the third respondent.

(3.) THE third respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit, denying the contentions as found mentioned in the affidavit filed in, support of the writ petition. According to the third respondent, the notice of the panchayat meeting was served on the petitioner on 19.9.2008 and in the meeting held on 26.9.2008, the petitioner also participated and resolution was passed only in his presence. It was further stated that the intention of the petitioner was only to paralyze the working of the panchayat and as such, the panchayat union was compelled to pass a resolution, denying the petitioner of his right to sign the cheque. In such circumstances, the third respondent justified the order passed by the first respondent. Submissions:-