MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that the District Collectors should give an opportunity to elected panchayat presidents to explain their stand before ousting them, contrary to the majority decision of the local body.

Allowing a writ moved by the dethroned president of Aariyappapuram panchayat in Tirunelveli district, Justice P. Jyothimani agreed that a bare reading of Section 205 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, would show that in a normal situation the question of giving opportunity or hearing the party, before passing an order, would not have been contemplated by law makers.

Referring to the Act, which contemplated that the Collector, after considering the views of the village panchayat, in his discretion, can either remove the president or drop further action, Mr. Justice Jyothimani said, "unfortunately, in the impugned order, the second respondent (Collector) has not even chosen to refer the panchayat proceedings except to say that he has considered the views of the panchayat."

In contrast, the Collector had taken the views of the Block Development Officer, the Government Pleader and the Director of Rural Development, which have no statutory force at all, the Judge said and added, "This situation gives responsibility on the second respondent (Collector) to exercise the discretion in a better manner than mechanically taking a decision based on some records."

On the contention of the Special Government Pleader that the Collector relied on the views of other officials only because he could not be a mute spectator when serious charges of corruption were levelled against the president, the Judge said, "Acceptance of such contention would result in very grave consequences, for it would be not only against the very purport of provision of Section 205 (11) of the Act but also open the flood gates for extraneous factors to be considered while exercising statutory powers."

Hence, accepting the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel, Isaac Mohanlal, that the impugned order suffered from "patent illegality," the Judge quashed it along with a subsequent notification published in the Government gazette.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail