IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.01.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.705 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.762 and 764 of 2022

 

K.Jaganathan                  …Petitioner

Vs.

.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by

Its Secretary to Government,

Rural Development Department, Fort, St. George, Chennai.

2. The Director of Rural Development and

Panchayat Raj,

Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai.

3. The District Collector, Collectrate Buildings, Salem.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Salem, Suramangalam,

Salem District.                                                               …Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the proceeding Na.Ka.No.2773/2021/A3 dated 04.01.2022 on the file of the 4^th respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires.

For Petitioner     :	Mr.N.R.Chandran Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Kannan.
For Respondents   :	Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General

Assisted by Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi

Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

The lis on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the notice dated 04.01.2022 informing the petitioner that the meeting is scheduled to be convened on 21.01.2022, Friday at 11

A.M to place No Confidence Motion moved by the members.

2. The petitioner states that elections were conducted on 30.12.2019 for Panamarathuppatti Panchayat Union Council and there were 13 ward council members for the said union. The petitioner was elected as one of the ward council member from the 10^th ward, via direct election mandate.  Subsequently, the petitioner was elected as a Chairman of Panchayat Union Council.  The petitioner raised several allegations regarding the political affairs, which may not be relevant for the purpose of considering this Writ Petition.
3. The petitioner states that complaint was filed against the petitioner and No Confidence Motion was moved against him on 22.10.2021. The 4^th respondent vide letter dated 18.11.2021 issued notice under Section 212 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994.  Thereafter, the Writ Petitioner filed W.P.No.26587 of 2021 challenging the proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 29.11.2021. This Court considered the issues and passed final orders on

22.12.2021 as follows:

“30. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders:

• That the impugned communication dated 29.11.2021, for the aforestated reasons and discussions, is hereby quashed.
• As a sequel, it is open to the 4th respondent to issue a fresh notice under sub~section (3) of Section 212 of the Act along with the copy of the proposed resolution/ notice for No Confidence signed by 8 Council members of the Panchayat Union Council dated 15.11.2021 and also the copy of the charges be served on the petitioner through registered post with acknowledgment due requiring him to give reply for such notice within a period of 7 days.
• Thereafter, with or without the reply of the petitioner, a further notice fixing a date for meeting can be issued by the 4th respondent to take up for consideration of the proposed No Confidence Motion. On that meeting, it shall be transacted and decided depending upon the majority being mustered by both sides. This is what exactly since has been contemplated under Section 212, referred to above, the said procedure

can be followed in accordance withe the said

provision.”

4. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the 4^th respondent sought for explanations from the petitioner in respect of the allegations against him. The petitioner also submitted his detailed explanations vide letter dated 28.12.2021.  Thereafter, the impugned notice dated 04.01.2022 was issued informing the petitioner that the meeting is scheduled to be conducted on

21.01.2022 at 11 A.M.

5. N.R.Chandran, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned notice is untenable and the No Confidence Motion moved based on certain allegations are politically motivated. Therefore, convening a meeting itself is unwarranted.
6. The learned senior counsel referred to Section 207 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, and contended that the case of the petitioner would not fall under Section 212 of the Act. Therefore, the procedures contemplated under Section 207 has to be conducted and in such circumstances if the allegations are found to be flimsy and without any material, the Government would be in a position to drop the allegations against the petitioner.  Thus, Section 207 is more appropriate in the case of the petitioner than issuing the notice under Section 212 of the Act.
7. The learned senior counsel is of an opinion that suchmotivated no confidence motion can never be allowed to move against the person who is democratically elected. Therefore, an opportunity of conducting enquiry must be provided to the petitioner with reference to Section 207 of the Act.
8. The learned senior counsel drew the attention of the Court with reference to the orders passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.26587 of 2021 and said that the earlier notice

was quashed by this Court.  Therefore, fresh notice issued by the 4^th respondent by taking undue advantage of the liberty granted by this Court cannot be appreciated.

9. J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General, objected the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that Section 207 of the Act has no applicability with reference to the case on hand. Section 212 is the provision which is applicable and even in the earlier Writ Petition, the petitioner has contended that the procedures contemplated under Section 212 has to be followed in the case of the petitioner.  Thus, now the petitioner cannot turn around and make submission that Section 207 would be applicable in the present case.
10. The learned Additional Advocate General reiterated by stating that the petitioner is frequently filing Writ Petitions one after another at every stage only to protract proceedings and to stall No Confidence Motion, so as to escape from the clutches of the proceedings, instead of facing the proceedings on merits. Such action should not be appreciated by this Court.
11. It is contended that the respondents have scrupulously followed the procedures contemplated under Section 212 of the Act and opportunity was already provided to the writ petitioner who inturn availed opportunity and submitted his explanations. Once the petitioner subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the authorities in respect of the actions initiated based on the No Confidence Motion, now he cannot challenge the notice informing the petitioner regarding the place and time of the meeting to be convened.  Thus, the Writ Petition has to be rejected.
12. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
13. The earlier round of litigation would reveal that the petitioner placed his reliance on Section 212 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. The Court considered the arguments made therein and quashed the notice on the ground of violations of procedures and thereafter granted liberty to the 4^th respondent to issue fresh notice under Section 212 (3) of the Act along with copy of the proposed resolution / notice for No Confidence signed by 8 Council members of the Panchayat Union council dated 15.11.2021 and also the copy of the charges be served on the petitioner through Registered post.

Further, directions are given that, on receipt of the reply from the

 

petitioner or if there is no reply, the No Confidence Motion has to be taken for consideration.

14. When such liberty was granted by this Court to the 4^th respondent, the 4^th respondent issued notice seeking explanations from the petitioner and the copy of the charges were also enclosed. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanations in respect of the allegations set out against him. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent issued the impugned notice dated 04.01.2022 fixing date and time for convening the meeting for No Confidence Motion moved against the petitioner.
15. With reference to the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that Section 207 of the Act has to be applied, this Court is of the opinion that Section 207 stipulates removal of Chairman of panchayat union council. Removal of Chairman proceedings may be initiated if the Government of their own motion or on a representation in writing signed by not less than two-thirds of the strength of the Panchayat Union Council. However, in the present case no such removal proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, right from the beginning, even during the earlier writ petition.
16. It is an admitted fact that the No Confidence Motion was moved against the petitioner. When the No Confidence Motion is moved against the petitioner, Section 212 would be applicable and the procedures contemplated under Section 212 has to be followed by the authorities for considering the No Confidence Motion.
17. Section 212 (3) stipulates that a copy of the statement of charges along with the motion shall be caused to be delivered to the concerned Chairman or Vice-Chairman by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall be required to give a statement in reply to the charges within a week of the receipt of the motion by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman. The other proceedings contemplated would unambiguously portrays that the Revenue Divisional Officer who preside over the meeting has to follow the proceedings as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and Rules. As far as the impugned notice is concerned, it was issued under Section 212 (3) of the Act and therefore the notice impugned has to be decided with reference to Section 212 (3) of the Act.
18. The notice reveals that the No Confidence Motion

petition was communicated to the petitioner and that an explanation was called for. The writ petitioner has also submitted his detailed explanations to the charges and thereafter, the 4^th respondent fixed the date and time for convening meeting to consider the No Confidence Motion application. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity or perversity in respect of the notice, which was issued in consonance with the provisions of the Section 212 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 .

19. The learned Additional Advocate General raised a point

that the notice impugned was issued on 04.01.2022 fixing the date of the meeting as 21.01.2022. However, the petitioner moved the present writ petition at the last moment i.e., one day prior to the meeting which would cause pressure on the respondents.  Further, in the event of entertaining such writ petitions at the last moment, the same would cause prejudice to the interest of the other parties who may not get fair opportunity to defend their case.

20. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the impugned notice was received by the petitioner belatedly and therefore, he could not able to approach the Court by filing the present writ petition.
21. However, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted the files which would reveal that the petitioner had received the copy of the impugned notice on 05.01.2022 at 05:35 pm. The petitioner has made his signature and acknowledged the receipt of the impugned notice. Therefore, the said contention of the

petitioner is incorrect.

22. No doubt, the rights of the parties to move the Court

can never be thwarted by the High Court. The right to move the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made available to every citizen.  However, the Courts must ensure that when such Writ Petitions are moved belatedly despite the fact that there is an ample time available to move the same in advance, the likelihood of prejudice to either of the parties has to be considered by the Court.

23. There is a growing trend of moving the writ petitions at

last moment for the purpose of securing interim order.  Thereafter, it takes several years for disposal of the case. Many such writ petitions are pending before the High Court and the decision in most such occasion has greatly prejudiced either of the parties.  Even this Court has dealt with number of cases where interim orders are obtained and the writ petitions are pending for long years.

24. Therefore, when the litigants approach the Court of

law, his conduct and intention to move the Writ petition at the last moment has to be considered by the High Court for the purpose of considering the application for grant of interim orders.  Taking undue advantage of the over burden of the High Court, parties can never be allowed to abuse the process of law.  At the last moment they urge the Court based on one or the other point and get an interim order.  Thereafter, the Writ Petition is kept pending for several years.

25. Thus, the contention raised in this regard is certainly an

issue to be considered by the High Court, especially for the purpose of grant of interim orders.

26. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged only the notice. A question arises, whether the writ petition is entertainable under Article 226 of the constitution of India against the notice or not?
27. No writ petition needs to be entertained in a routine manner. The notice issued fixing date and time for convening the meeting has to be considered as an information which would not provide cause in normal circumstances.  Only when the notice is issued by the authorities having no jurisdiction, the Writ Petition can be entertained, but not otherwise.
28. In the present case, there is a possibility of taking

decision in either way during the course of the meeting scheduled to be conducted on 21.01.2022. Thus, the writ petition is not only premature but the petitioner is not able to establish any case for moving such writ petition challenging the impugned notice issued informing the date and time of the meeting scheduled to be held for the purpose of considering the application for No Confidence Motion.

29. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed

above, this court do not find any acceptable grounds for the purpose of interferring with the impugned notice.  As the meeting is scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e., on 21.01.2022 at 11:00 am, the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the meeting.

30. With these observatisons the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

20.01.2022

Kan

Internet   :  Yes

Index      :  Yes

Speaking order : Yes/No

To

1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by

Its Secretary to Government,

Rural Development Department, Fort, St. George, Chennai.

2. The Director of Rural Development and

Panchayat Raj,

Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai.

3. The District Collector, Collectrate Buildings, Salem.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Salem, Suramangalam, Salem District.

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Kan

W.P.No.705 of 2022

20.01.2022