Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Writ petition was filed at the High Court of Madras. The petitioner is an elected member of the Thiruppuvanam Panchayat Union, District Sivagangai. He challenges the tender notification dated on 1st July 2020, issued by the Block Development Officer Thiruppuvanam. He alleged that the choice of the tender was influenced by political consideration. He further alleged that important works are being done in the ward whose elected members are from the ruling party in the state. Nine members out of seventeen are from the opposition party and one is an independent candidate. The ruling party did not secure a majority in the panchayat union because of that the officials are not calling for the meeting for the election of chairman and vice-chairman. Further, the impugned tender notification was issued by the 3rd respondent bypassing the local body.
A counter affidavit was issued by the respondents denying the allegations. According to them, communication was issued by the 3rd Respondent dated 22nd May 2020 to all the ward members requesting them to identify the welfare works to be carried out in their respective wards. Three works were to be carried out by using the fund allotted by the 15th Finance Commission. The application submitted by the petitioner and all other wards members is under process. The work under the impugned tender is to be carried under the general fund of the panchayat. The work mentioned in the impugned tender has no connection with the 15th Finance Commission.
The learned Special Government Pleader contended that this Court should not interfere with the impugned tender process. Further, questioned the Locus Standi of the petitioner who thinks that issuance of the impugned notification constitutes a rejection of his request dated 28th May 2020. The immediate execution of the work is necessary for the welfare of society. There is statutory backing traceable to sec 86 and 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994, that the 3rd respondent is very much authorized to discharge the functions of the panchayat union in his capacity as the Special Officer appointed under Sec 261-A of the Act.
The Court is of the view that the Locus Standi of the petitioner cannot be questioned. Since he is an elected member of the ward. He can call the local administration to account, more so in the matter involving the panchayat union.
The Power of Sec 86 of the Act can be involved only in case of emergency. The commissioner must submit that the execution of the work is necessary for the health or safety of the public. In this case, the requirement is not met.
According to the dictionary, an emergency is defined as a serious, sudden, and dangerous situation that needs to be dealt with immediately. The record produced before the court doesn't indicate anywhere that the 3rd respondent has opined that the work is emergent and needs to be dealt with immediately for the safety of the public or health of the public. Therefore the Court held that Sec 86 of the Act will not come to the aid of the respondents.
The learned Special Government Pleader contended that since the chairman and vice-chairman of the union have been elected, the Block Development Officer can continue to act as the special officer. As the first meeting has not been held yet. The meeting held on 6th January 2020 for the administering oath of the elected members cannot be counted as the first meeting of the panchayat.
As per the program of election issued by the election commission of Tamil Nadu and published in the State Gazette dated 9th December 2019 and 6th January 2020 is the date on which the first meeting of the elected members was held on oath-taking day. The belief of the 3rd Respondent that even after that, he is entitled to continue as a special officer is not found. Sec 261-A is a transitory provision, which means temporary. The term of the 3rd Respondent as the special officer came to an end on 6tg January 2020.
Sec 112 of the Act sets out the duty of the union council to provide for specific matters. If the duty is bypassed, it cannot discharge the functions statutorily mandated. The ground projected by the respondents is unsustainable. Article 40 of the Constitution mandates the State to take steps to organize village panchayat and give them such powers so that they can work as necessary to functions as self-government.
An elected body has been treated as non-existent and been ignored in process of decision making. If there is no elected body, the Block Development Officer can submit a proposal unless it is a case of an emergency the local body is to deliberate and make the proposal. It is clear by the statement made by the petitioner's learned counsel that the 3rd respondent decided by usurping the position. Further, the impugned notification tender has been quashed. The Writ petition is allowed. Other connected petitions are closed.
86540
103860
630
114
59824